Talk:Cyclone Ulli/GA1

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

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is very good for such a recent subject. However, due to the limited time available to polish the article, there are several issues.

1. Well-written
 * a) Article has multiple prose issues.
 * In lead, 'south-east' should not be hyphenated.
 * Done.
 * In Meteorological history, 'Mid-west' should not be hyphenated and should probably be linked.
 * Done.
 * In Meteorological history, 'north-west' should not be hyphenated.
 * Done.
 * In Impact, this sentence: "In Edinburgh, winds were reported to be gusting to 102 mph (164 km/h), with winds also gusting to 105 mph (169 km/h) in Malin Head." might read better like this: "Wind gusts were reported at 102 mph (164 km/h) in Edinburgh and 105 mph (169 km/h) in Malin Head."
 * Altered it slightly.
 * In Impact, the name of the victim is not needed.
 * Done.
 * In Impact, write out numbers at beginning of sentences. 10'000 needs changed to 10,000.
 * Done.
 * In Impact, this sentence needs re-worded: "Strathclyde Fire and Rescue attended 488 incidents, with Lothian and Borders Fire Service attending more than 170 incidents over a 12 hour period during the storm, most were the result of structural damage to buildings, fallen trees and traffic accidents."
 * Removed.
 * In Impact, 'half-an-hour' should be 'a half hour' or 'thirty minutes'
 * Done.
 * In Impact, "His mother jumped in to save him in which both survived." Sentence needs re-worded.
 * Done.
 * In Impact, "strongest storm for seven years" - should 'for' be 'in'?
 * Yes, done.
 * In Impact, "Aalborg was hard hit..." - This sentence has some parallel wording issues.
 * What?
 * The wording is off. I fixed it.
 * Throughout, be consistent with use of 'mph' and 'km/h'. I saw both used as the primary unit.
 * Will fix later.
 * The year of the storm is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * It is mentioned in the infobox. However, I have added it in the MH.


 * b) Manual of style
 * The lead includes information that is not in the rest of the article and does not summarize the entire article.
 * Will fix later.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable
 * The references seem good. The only issue I noticed was that reference 8 does not show that damage was caused by the storm in the Midwestern U.S.
 * Will remove.
 * Not necessary, but encouraged: Refs 24, 25, and 26 are bare URLs.  They should be formatted like the rest of the sources.
 * Will fix later.
 * Fixed.

3. Broad in its coverage
 * In meteorological history section, there is no mention of the dissipation of the storm
 * Will add later.
 * Added.
 * The Aftermath section is about a different storm, but should be probably about recovery efforts.
 * I haven't seen anything about the recovery efforts.
 * I think that the storm is too recent to write a broad enough article on the subject. For example, there are no damage estimates or economic effects to include.
 * I'll probably GAN in a few months again?
 * Once more info is available, mainly about the aftermath, I think you'll have the information to add to the article that is needed. This effects the stability of the article also.

4. Neutral
 * The article is written from a neutral point of view and includes no original research.

5. Stable
 * The stability of this article is questionable. The storm just passed, thus, new information will continue to be made available in the near future.

6. Images
 * Images are appropriate and captions are good.

Due mainly to the concerns for the stability of the article, I am going to fail this article for now. I think it has good potential to be a good article in the next few months. It is well-sourced, and with the quick fixes to the prose and lead, it should pass. Hopefully, someone sticks with it and sees it to GA status soon. InThe AM 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will fix later. Bruvtakesover (T&#124;C) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In Impact, this sentence needs re-worded: "Strathclyde Fire and Rescue attended 488 incidents, with Lothian and Borders Fire Service attending more than 170 incidents over a 12 hour period during the storm, most were the result of structural damage to buildings, fallen trees and traffic accidents." HOW DOES Removed = RE-WORDED? is it more like cant be bothered? I have re-worded with links, back in: If still not good enough will RE-WORD AGAIN,,,
 * I can remove what I like. Bruvtakesover (T&#124;C) 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no need for an edit war here. As long as the sentence is cited correctly and the sentence is grammatically correct, I do not see a problem with leaving it in the article.  Also, this discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page.  I will move any other comments made here. InThe AM  17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)