Talk:Cyclone Lili (2019)

Section Merge?
If you can't find more information on preparations, I would recommend merging it into the impact section. This is done quite frequently for storms that only have a paragraph for preparations. Noah Talk 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

B Class review
Im just doing this now, so that way you have an idea of what to improve in order to eventually go for GA, A class, or FA.


 * B1: There is significant over-citing. You don't have to cite each sentence in a paragraph with the same source when there is only a single source. Same thing goes for citing sentences back to back with the same source (with other sources earlier in the paragraph and later). When constructing paragraphs, you should get more than one source in order to better show verifiability. Additionally, you need to add the National Center for Environmental Prediction as the site for the NOAA ref (NOAA is the publisher) and Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command as the publisher for the JTWC refs.
 * I have now addressed this. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * B2: At this point, coverage simply isn't complete as damage assessments are still underway.
 * B3: Structure will likely need some tweaking unless more info can be found on impacts. I expect an expansion of the impacts as more information becomes available. Due to the preps issue, I am saying no on this until it is clear that the structure is sound.
 * I have merged the preparations and impacts sections. Regarding the comments on Criteria B2 and B3, I think it is unlikely that any more information will become available regarding damages from the cyclone. Perhaps could use his magic to find some more news articles or others sources which mention damage and impacts? ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * B4: ✅ Nothing wrong with the grammar and style.
 * B5: ✅ Has an infobox, a track map, and an image. The number of supporting images is appropriate for an article of this size.
 * B6: ✅ Met is technical at times, but nothing I feel would cause a serious issue in understanding what's happening. Noah Talk 03:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging to say that I have addressed the comments. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone Lili (2019) → Cyclone Lili – The only cyclone named Lili had an article, see also examples of Typhoon Yutu and Cyclone Debbie. 203.145.94.63 (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It doesnt matter if it is the only one with an article. Another Lili exists in SHEM, so I hereby oppose. You linked storms that were so destructive that they warranted getting the main name. There is no indication this storm is deserving of that. Noah Talk 10:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: According to WP:ATDAB, when the subject of an article shares the name of another article regarding another subject, the article which does not cover the primary topic should be disambiguated parenthetically. Despite not having an article specifically, WP:WPTC does include Severe Tropical Cyclone Lili in the 1988-89 South Pacific cyclone season article (although the coverage amounts to no more than eight words). This cyclone affected New Caledonia as an equivalent Category 3 major hurricane on the SSHWS, and made landfall as a C1. This counts as more significant than the Lili which occurred in Indonesia that is covered in this article. Hence, I think the title should remain Cyclone Lili (2019). ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lili 1989 will get an article soon and since it was retired it will get the main article.Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above.  Sandy 141  56  :)  21:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.