Talk:Cyclone Waka/GA1

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

Reviewer: ★ Auree (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lede - There are a few issues that need fixing here.
 * • ... was one of the worst tropical cyclones to ever impact the South Pacific kingdom of Tonga. - Worst, how? This could imply several things. Was it deadly or damaging? In this case, it'd be better to go with something more specific such as "costliest", "devastating" or "catastrophic".
 * • Forming out of a near-equatorial trough in mid-December 2001, the precursor to Waka initially struggled to gain strength - Although I understand what you mean, this part could be misleading. Did the precursor to Waka form out of the trough, or was the trough the precursor to Waka?
 * • The storm gradually was able... - Doesn't read all too well.
 * • ... and 104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD) was wrought in damage. - Technically nothing wrong here, but consider using the currency sign (T$) instead.
 * • Hundreds of structures were destroyed and much of the nation's agriculture was destroyed. - A bit repetitive; could be altered a bit.
 * Overall, the prose is a little verbose and clunky; try to smoothen it out a bit.


 * Meteorological history - Pretty solid; no more than a handful of minor issues.
 * • ... twin equatorial monsoonal troughs - You link monsoon and trough separately, but an article on monsoon troughs exists, which I assume are the type of troughs in question here.
 * • You link sea surface temperature twice, though under different terms (initially "warm waters" and later on the actual term "sea surface temperatures"), which could be a bit confusing. I'd suggest using "warm sea surface temperatures" or something along those lines instead, and de-linking the second one.
 * • Later that day, the cyclone attained its peak intensity as a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone with winds of 185 km/h (115 km/h) and a barometric pressure of 930 mbar (hPa; 27.46 inHg).[2] The JTWC assessed the storm to have attained similar one-minute sustained winds upon peaking. - I'm guessing the first assessment was done by the Fiji Meteorological Service, and that the winds measured by the agency were one-minuted sustained as well? Perhaps you could clarify a bit.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • Wikify eye.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • Gradual weakening took place over the following few days and the system retained gale-force winds through January 5; however, its pressure continued to decrease. - This sentence is sort of bloated and doesn't read too well.
 * Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • I fixed some minor issues, but it could still use a copy-edit.
 * Preparations and impact - Same as MH, basically.
 * • Many residents on the small island of Niuafo'ou, about 35 km2 (13.5 mi2) in size, evacuated to other islands prior to Waka's arrival. - Why do you mention its size? Did it have any effect on local preparations or impact?
 * Since small can be a relative term, I thought it best to give an actual size for the island as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then don't mention anything about its size altogether. After all, that's what the main article on the island is for. ★ Auree (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • According to local reports, nearly every tree in Neiafu had been downed by high winds and "It is like the island [was] sandblasted." - The inline quotation is kind of terse and loose.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • ... about 200 homes in the city were severely damaged or desroyed. - Typo. Also, it'd be better if you switched around "severely damaged" and "destroyed".
 * When reading that sentence, severely damaged or destroyed sounds better than destroyed or severely damaged.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I read it again, I agree. ★ Auree (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • Six months after the storm, the bat population in Vava'u was still only 20% the pre-storm level. - Missing a word there. ;)
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * • Also needs a copy-edited for optimal punctuation.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * No problems here.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Very thorough and informative.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Yep.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * All good.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captionsy):
 * All images are PD.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/ Fail :
 * 1) Comments:
 * Please link storm name to article here and here.
 * Linked Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Linked Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The whole article needs a quick rescan.
 * You mention Waka passed directly over Vava'u in both the lede and the Impact and preps section; however, it isn't mentioned in the MH, which is supposed to cover any major aspects regarding its storm path.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In all, it's a solid article; I'll pass it once all the issues have been addressed. ★ Auree (talk) 02:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I've addressed all the main comments you left. Is there anything else specific with the prose that needs fixing? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better now. A few problems left I see...
 * • The storm attained its peak intensity as a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone on December 31 with winds of 185 km/h (115 mph); it passed directly over Vava'u at this strength. - Kind of an awkward structure here, especially for a lede sentence.
 * • ... the system entered a region which favored - Clause should be restrictive.
 * And more minor issues such as these; however, I feel it does meet GA now. Fix these last issues and I'll pass it. :) ★ Auree (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Problems met. Passing – good work. ★ Auree (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)