Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Nigel


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Nigel, Cyclone Eric

 * ... that Severe Tropical Cyclones Nigel and Eric made landfall on Fiji's Viti Levu within a week of each other?
 * Alt1 ... that Severe Tropical Cyclones Nigel and Eric made landfall on Fiji's Viti Levu within 36 hours of each other?
 * Comment: If possible it would be great to have this up on the main page during January as we look at the 30th anniversary of the systems.
 * Comment: If possible it would be great to have this up on the main page during January as we look at the 30th anniversary of the systems.

Created by Jason Rees (talk). Self nominated at 14:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC).


 * Note: Jason Rees, as you have five previous DYKs, you will need to supply two quid pro quo reviews of other DYK nominations, one for each article nominated. The reviewing guide and the rules and clarifying explanations of the rules are available for reference; if you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that 2 reviews are needed since nothings happened to Eric yet, in order to make it eligible for a full blown DYK unless im missing something.Jason Rees (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Jason Rees, you included both Eric and Nigel in your original nomination as articles being nominated, though you didn't format the hook with any bold links as required for nominated articles. It appears that Graeme Bartlett naturally thought this meant they both needed to be bolded in the hook, and fixed it accordingly. Now that I look at Eric, it's over a year and a half old, and your recent edits have left the size basically unchanged, so it's clearly not eligible for DYK as part of this nomination, which can therefore only include Nigel. I've just revised the hook to reflect that—I reversed the order of the names so Nigel comes first and Eric is a normal wikilink, not a bolded nominated article link. It does mean that you'll still need to supply one QPQ review for Nigel, however, so you'll want to get right on that, especially if you want this to run in January, which is only six days away. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bluemoonset is correct, the hook before I edited it had no links or bold. Both articles were listed in the template, and I did not check for any DYK requirements before formatting it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:55, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Im really not bothered about what happened as it kinda gave me some motivation to try and get both articles up to GA by the time of the anniversary. Anyway i briefly reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) earlier today.Jason Rees (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Jason Rees, "brief" reviews do not count. A full review, covering the DYK criteria, must be completed by you. (I've posted more details at the nomination you looked at earlier.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith when i say it was all checked by me using the DYK tool and my own eyes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed. Note that Cyclone Nigel is the only article under consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, before I start a review on this, please clarify: is Template:Did you know nominations/Grand Theft Auto V (re-release) considered a valid review for QPQ? Redtigerxyz Talk 13:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redtigerxyz, I'd say that Jason's final post on January 2 covered the remaining issues needed in the review, so I think it was ultimately valid and counts as a full QPQ. Thanks for asking. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Jason Rees, Article created by Jason Rees on December 5, 2014. 4194 characters. Issues: Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * the hook needs to be formatted properly. Only Eric Nigel needs to be bolded. The fact is also not stated in the article
 * Close paraphrasing:
 * Article: "After assessing the damage and finding thousands of people homeless, the Government of Vanuatu established a disaster relief and reconstruction fund
 * Source : "After assessing the damage on the major islands in the northern part of Vanuatu and finding thousands homeless, the GOV established a disaster relief and reconstruction fund, and coordinated international donations"
 * Article: "These needs included a 6 month food-rationing project for 10,000 households, a rehabilitation program for 10,000 shelters and improved internalcommunication including between the FMS in Nadi and the capital city Suva."
 * Source : "These included a six-month food-rationing project for 10,000 households to be supplied, in part, by a faster-yielding vegetable production program mounted by the Directorate of Agriculture: arehabilitation program for approximately 10,000 shelter units: and improved internal communications, particularly between the national center for weather monitoring and forecasting in Nadi and the capital city of Suva."


 * Redtigerxyz, I don't understand your first point. Eric should not be bolded, and isn't, because Nigel is the only article under consideration. Eric is only a regular link, which is allowed. (So far as I can tell, the hook is correctly formatted as is.) You are, of course, absolutely correct that the landfall of the two cyclones within a week of each other needs to be in the Nigel article, and also inline cited there. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, copy-paste typos. "Severe Tropical" should not be bolded IMO. Redtigerxyz  Talk 11:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think ive got to try and expand the impact section today if i can - but i kinda disagree with Severe Tropical not being bolded since thats the "official name" of the system.Jason Rees (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redtigerxyz, I disagree with you. "Cyclone Nigel" is certainly valid, but so is "Tropical Cyclone Nigel" (the storm's full name once it reached hurricane strength) and "Severe Tropical Cyclone Nigel" (its full name when it was strongest). There's no reason the latter should not be be used in bold, and I think frankly that it would look and read quite oddly to have "Severe Tropical" unlinked and unbolded, since it is part of the storm's full name during that period. (Similarly, we've seen use of "Super Typhoon" in bolded links in the past.) Regarding the close paraphrasing, the second instance is actually text copied from Cyclone Eric, so it originated there. (It's still not allowed, of course, whatever its origin.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain BlueMoonSet but in this region a Tropical Cyclone is a Tropical Storm and a Severe Tropical Cyclone is a hurricane. Anyway can we please have some common sense and remember that quite a bit of Nigel's aftermath in Fiji, will be the same as Eric and thus a few lines from Eric may appear in Nigel and visa versa for obvious reasons. As i said earlier my intention is to expand Nigel out a bit today so that i can take care of any close paraphrasing issues.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Jason Rees, sorry I got the categories wrong in terms of equivalent strength, though I think the rest stands. I'm looking forward to your edits. Incidentally, for Wikipedia, copying from other Wikipedia articles is fine so long as it is specifically acknowledged in the edit summary, or noted on the article's talk page (see WP:CWW). However, when such copying occurs in articles nominated for DYK, the copied material is subject to 5x expansion (the article must be at least five times as long as the copied material)—your article easily meets that test, but it does apply. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Last night i discovered a new source that allows me to get the timeframe between the two systems to about 36 hours as a result i would suggest that becomes the blurb rather than a week.Jason Rees (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Jason Rees, please write up a new ALT hook with your preferred wording of the above. Once we have that, we can call for a reviewer to check it against the article and new sourcing. (We always leave old hooks in place so that people can follow the progression of the review.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok its been written.Jason Rees (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed, including of Alt1 hook, and that close paraphrasing has been addressed. I've struck the original hook since Alt1 is the same except for a shortened (and therefore more hooky) time frame. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset, I really just want to tick this off, but I'm stuck in the second and third sentences of the body already. Jason Rees, the language of that second sentence is not verified clearly enough by the sources. I don't see where the JWTC is even mentioned, let alone that something was officially declared something. I mean, p. 246 of ref. 2 uses the term 13P, but doesn't say anything about a declaration and doesn't seem to mention the name "Nigel". I don't even see the date 16 January in ref. 1 or 2. Now, I'm sure I'm an amateur, too blind to see what the expert sees at first glance, but that's what you get for using these primary sources. So, even if these primary sources are OK for this rather crucial information, they need decoding, and I can't do that. Drmies (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Page 138 of Ref 2 covers your concerns: since it explains the convention and tells us that 13P was Nigel and that the first warning was on January 16. Page 246 is meant as evidence to say that the first advisory was on January 16 @ 18/21z. I do not think that the source needs decoding since the tables are self-explanatory in my opinon.Jason Rees (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me suggest that most people will be less intrigued by the natural phenomenon of two storms so close together, as by the human experience of being hit by two storms in close succession:
 * Alt2 ... that in 1985 the Fijian island of Viti Levu was hit by two tropical cyclones—‌Nigel and Eric—‌within 36 hours? EEng (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg New reviewer needed (Drmies won't be returning), to check the hooks and determine whether the sources are adequate to support them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svgle length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. TeriEmbrey (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)