Talk:Cyclone Narelle/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be taking this article for review, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead - What year did this cyclone occur in?
 * Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead - "A total of 14 people were killed by the storm, and 17 others were listed as missing." This was quite a recent cyclone, but have there been any updates on those originally listed as missing?
 * I keep searching but find nothing. There was another event right after that makes it too difficult to determine what is attributable to Narelle and what's not. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Meteorological history - What is the difference between the techniques that give four such different maximum intensities (last half of second paragraph)? What is the difference between "operationally" (last sentence) and the three preceding descriptions?
 * Post-analysis indicated that they overestimated the peak intensity so they reduced it to the intensity listed now. The third is supplied by another agency, JTWC, and the fourth was just a satellite estimate that was not considered the actual intensity. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there any way we can make the difference between the first, second and fourth estimates more clear? (The JTWC one is fairly obvious - different agency, different techniques/equipment/whatever.) To a layman, it's quite confusing to have one sentence say "Narelle is estimated to have attained its peak intensity with winds of 185 km/h", and then a few sentences later say "the storm was believed to have peaked...with wind gusts estimated at 285 km/h". Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indonesia, "Of the 17 crewmen, 6 were rescued and 11 others remained missing as of 16 January.", "In all, 14 people were killed and 6 others were listed as missing." Can these be updated?
 * Same as with the lead. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Western Australia, "potentially as much as 76 mm (3 in) of rain." Why potentially if the cyclone happened a month ago?
 * Changed potentially to produced Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Western Australia, "A potential tornado" - Don't we know one way or the other yet?
 * No information available for this either. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall a very nice write-up, as usual. However, there are a few places that feel like it was written as the cyclone was happening, with no updates after the storm had passed and people figured out what had actually happened. Also a couple of minor prose niggles and technical details. Nothing major, though, so I'm placing the article on hold until the above issues can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk)
 * Thanks for the review Dana! Sadly there is no information available for any of the missing people or the possible tornado so I can't update that and provide a more accurate total. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly looking good. Just one last niggle that I'm not being able to wrap my head around - I think it needs to have a bit more background explanation that would be obvious to a hurricane person (i.e. you!) but is just confusing to a layperson (i.e. me!). Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some tweaks to try and clarify the difference between the peaks. I removed one of them since it's not necessary and seems to only add confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is much more clear! Thanks for the rewrite, and the article looks good, so I'm now passing it to GA status. One last thing to consider: Is it maybe undue weight to repeat the information about the drought in Australia twice in the lead (the first and last sentences), when in actuality the storm had more affect (more damage) in Indonesia? A minor issue, though, and not one to hold up GA status over. Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Overall a very nice write-up, as usual. However, there are a few places that feel like it was written as the cyclone was happening, with no updates after the storm had passed and people figured out what had actually happened. Also a couple of minor prose niggles and technical details. Nothing major, though, so I'm placing the article on hold until the above issues can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk)
 * Thanks for the review Dana! Sadly there is no information available for any of the missing people or the possible tornado so I can't update that and provide a more accurate total. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly looking good. Just one last niggle that I'm not being able to wrap my head around - I think it needs to have a bit more background explanation that would be obvious to a hurricane person (i.e. you!) but is just confusing to a layperson (i.e. me!). Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some tweaks to try and clarify the difference between the peaks. I removed one of them since it's not necessary and seems to only add confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is much more clear! Thanks for the rewrite, and the article looks good, so I'm now passing it to GA status. One last thing to consider: Is it maybe undue weight to repeat the information about the drought in Australia twice in the lead (the first and last sentences), when in actuality the storm had more affect (more damage) in Indonesia? A minor issue, though, and not one to hold up GA status over. Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)