Wikipedia:Peer review/1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season/archive1

1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on this article which I've expanded from stub to GA. I've looked all over and have found no further information on any of the storms. Comments on the prose and layout of the article are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit 16:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This is generally cleanly-written and informative, well-sourced and well-illustrated, stable, and neutral. I have a few small prose and style concerns and a couple of concerns about image licenses.

"Dates"
 * Since the article is India-centric, shouldn't the dates be expressed in d-m-y format?
 * I'm not sure, I haven't run into this issue before with the other NIO articles so I'd rather leave it in MDY format unless someone from WP:India says otherwise. Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead
 * "There are two main seas in the North Indian Ocean - the Arabian Sea to the west of the Indian subcontinent." - Something seems to be missing from this sentence. The Bay of Bengal?
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "On average, 4 to 6 storms form in the North Indian Ocean every season." - Numbers smaller than 10 are generally written as words. Exceptions include sentences like the next one: "With 11 depressions and eight tropical cyclones... ". Here the MoS advises consistency rather than one number as digits and one number as a word.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "4.9 m (16 ft) storm surge" - WP:MOSNUM says to spell out the main units and abbreviate the secondary units.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "Rs. 120 billion ($3 billion USD)" - I believe it should be Rs.120 billion (US$3 billion)
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Season summary
 * "The storm reached its peak intensity with winds of 120 km/h (75 mph) before weakened due to strong wind shear." - "weakening" rather than "weakened"?
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone 02A
 * "the JTWC issued their first advisory" - A center is an 'it" rather than a "they". Ditto in the other places this construction occurs.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone 03A
 * "$25,000 (USD)" - The U.S. dollar amounts throughout should be expressed in the format US$ per WP:MOSNUM; thus here it would be US$25,000.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

''Deep depression"
 * Since this identical section head is used twice in the article, I'd suggest "First deep depression" here and "Second deep depression" later.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "The last advisory was issued the next day while over open waters." - The advisory wasn't over open waters. How about "while the storm was over open waters"?
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

''Depression"
 * "with winds peaking at 45 km/h (30 mph) before making landfall" - How about "before the storm made landfall"?
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Images
 * Nicely illustrated. The license for the lead image is incomplete because it lacks a rationale for the source map. It's pretty clearly a NASA base map, so the license should be easy to fix. The locked source map image:02A 1998.jpg is a problem too. How can fact-checkers verify the source if their entry is blocked? I'd recommend double-checking the other image licenses too to make sure that the source links actually go to the sources.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If you find this review helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! It was very helpful :) Cyclonebiskit 13:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles should not be simultaneously listed at WP:FAC and WP:PR; as there are numerous dash and hyphen issues in this article, I suggest withdrawing from FAC and continuing with Peer review to prepare the article for FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive just been having a scroll on the WMO website and found this [|document] which clearly states that Very Severe Cyclonic Storm and Super Cyclonic Storm were used in 1998. so basically Cyclonebiskit you need to add in the IMD intensites using the IMD Report of 2009 which has the final figures for 1998 in itJason Rees (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)