Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cyclone/1

Cyclone

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Keep. Article was much improved and no further objections are outstanding. Geometry guy 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles for GA sweeps. I am not sure if this article meets the criteria to remain a GA and would like others to take a look to get their opinions. The article seems a bit brief for the topic, and I'm not sure if it meets the broad requirements. Much of the article is also not sourced, but it links to the main article mentioning most of the same information (even though it may not be sourced on those articles as well). The images are all fine, and are currently free. The lead is also somewhat limited, but the article is short, so that should be fine. I am just concerned over the length and sourcing. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist Although it's a nice little article with some good content, I've thought for a while that it doesn't meet the GA criteria. The first thing that pops out at me is the short lead. The article may be short, but the article itself should be expanded, as it currently contains minimum information. There are also several unsourced statements. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep You may want to hold off for a couple days. I'm making substantial improvements to the article at this time, including adding more content and references.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, an expansion of the article would be great. Let us know when you've completed work so we can take another look. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thegreatdr is working hard to improve the article. Let's give him time. Majoreditor (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the major editing has been accomplished. The article is now double its original size, and it is much better referenced than it once was.  Let me know what else needs to be done for this article to remain at GA status.  Thegreatdr (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Wow! I've never seen an article improve so much overnight. Looks much better than it was. The only thing I can think of would be to remove the bolding from the body of the article. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed the remaining three bolded words which are not in the first line of the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Juliancolton. I'm most impressed by the rapid improvements Thegreatdr made. Majoreditor (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I nominated this, and am impressed with the massive improvement of the article. If anybody wants to close this, that would be fine by me. Good work Thegreadr, and thank you for your efforts on the other articles that were on hold during sweeps. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I didn't see the nominated version of the article, but it looks pretty good now. Nikki  311  20:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delist. Based on the above comments I intended to close this as a keep, but then I looked at the article. Please do not be seduced by tremendous improvements, even though these are much appreciated. The cyclone is one of the most important weather phenomena there is and this tiny (25K) article barely touches upon the issues. It does not explain warm, cold and occluded fronts; the explanation of the origins of cyclones is completely opaque and does not make contact with the common ways in which they occur, nor the life cycle of (say) a tropical cyclone that becomes a low pressure system. And even though the article is lacking, the lead fails to summarise it, and is certainly lacking as an introduction to the topic. Geometry guy 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As for delving into frontal theory, that shouldn't be the point of this article and really wouldn't get into the formation of cyclones. I'll make sure related wikilinks are included for the various fronts.  However, it appears you're looking for more detail concerning cyclogenesis.  That has been done.  The addition of these details brings the article size up to 30k.  There has been some additions and reorganization of the lead.  See what you think.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * These are definite improvements. Re frontal theory, of course it shouldn't be the point of the article, but the article has many summary style sections, so why not a summary style section on fronts? And the article still does not address the development of one type of cyclone into another. I also think the article (and especially the lead) is more technical in some places than is strictly necessary. I know I'm giving you a tough time, but I also know that meteorology articles can be much better than this! :-) Geometry guy 22:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could add a section on fronts into the extratropical section, as well as conversion of one type of cyclone into the other. I'm guessing you're looking for conversion of extratropical cyclones to/from tropical?  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. "From" is what matters to the Eastern US and Europe, but if "to" is important as well, then by all means describe it, assuming, as always, that you have reliable sources to hand :-) Geometry guy 22:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Information regarding fronts and conversion of TCs/STs/XTs back and forth has been added into the article. Related information has been added into the lead, which needed to be slightly reorganized.  Article size is up to 35 kb.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks much better, thanks, and is probably broad enough for GA now, so I've struck my objection. If I have time, I will look at the article again more carefully, especially the lead. Geometry guy 07:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless, somebody give Thegrader a barnstar! That said, the article still needs expansion prior to GA; anyone up to it? —Giggy 09:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)