Talk:Cyclone Fay/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Seing that I've ever looked at the article much, I though I would review.[reply]

Lead[edit]

"Cyclone Fay was a tropical cyclone which struck Western Australia during the 2003-04 Australian region cyclone season." boring. Any better opener? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
When did Fay form? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
What direction did it move in? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
When did Fay intensify? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Fay was the only Category 5 cyclone during the season. It had a minimum pressure of 910 mbar (hPa; 26.87 inHg) and maximum wind gusts of 132 mph (213 km/h).[1] " why are you using gusts instead of sustained winds? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some over linking in the section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history[edit]

"system was designated Tropical Cyclone 18S by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, with winds of 25 knots (29 mph; 46 km/h)" why are you breaking WPTC rules and using knots? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Fay began to turn southward on 17 March;" delink compass road directions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"By March 19 Fay's track had turned to the west-southwest," see above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"and on 21 March, Fay became a Category 5 storm,[6]" on what scale?. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"strengthening as it moved into a shortwave trough" jagron please. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" intensifying its poleward outflow." explain/wikilink poleward outflow. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" intensifying its poleward outflow." sounds like a word is missing. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" A mid-latitude trough caused the steering ridge to weaken, causing Fay to turn to the south.[7]" again, jagron is needed in two places
"It then encountered moister air as it moved southward, leading it to reintensify from 25-27 March, becoming a Category 4 storm as it made landfall on the Pilbara coast between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on 27 March, with estimated wind gusts of 146 mph (235 km/h). " a puch of things, 1 UTC time per WPTC standards. 2) reintensify to re-intensify. 3. wind speeds not gusts per WPTC standard. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added the UTC time of landfall. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations[edit]

Due to it's lack of size, combine it with the impact section if you like. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Cyclone warnings were issued for areas threatened by the storm, and communities in the path of the storm were warned of expected high rainfall, as amounts greater than 20 centimetres (7.9 in) were expected.[10]" two things, Firs tof all, abbrvate centimeter Second of all, wikilink to tropical cyclone watches and warnings during the first two words of the sentence. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed so that centimeters is now abbreviated. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact[edit]

Combine the first three paragraphs. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Any rainfall records? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Any damage total? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all: No damage/rainfall records found. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further fixed. The rainfall amount for one of the sites was off by a factor of 10. Here's a question...the rainfall amounts in that report were significantly higher than the TRMM rainfall estimates. Should we maintain the graphic when the discrepancy is this large? Keep in mind that all rain gages actually under report rainfall, not over report, especially during high winds. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

Combine with impact. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Why was it retired. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Article got better as I went along, will leave on hold for at least a week or two. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I'm currently finishing up a research project on a storm case study that I'll be turning in the week after Thanksgiving, so if you're willing to give me teh two weeks of it on hold, I'll get to it hopefully either late this week or early next week. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill give you two to three weeks, hows that? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this. I do plan on getting to it by Monday/Tuesday. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and fixed all of YE's concerns. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and cleaned up the date formatting for the dates you added to make them consistent. YE, if there's anything else you suggest changing, I'm back from working on my research and can address the issues. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything new here? What's holding it back from passing? – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking in lead, more MH, and combine the last two sentences of the impact. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the overlinking and impact, but not sure what you mean by "more mh". Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Meteorological history section needs to be expanded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Out of my expertise, so hopefully the two above can do that swiftly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure I can do much more to expand that. The sources I put in are all that I can find. If anybody else wants to add to it, go ahead. But why wasn't expansion listed in the original things to fix? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 advisories + a TCFA from the JTWC, that you could use to expand this article like i told you back in October. Also if you massaged the BoM report a bit you will be able to expand this article further. I recommend that this article is failed for now and renominated when its better.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inks.LWC, if I were you, what I would do is talk more about Fay's life as a tropical disturbance before it was actually a cyclone. Additionally, once it was a cyclone, I would talk more about favorable or unfavorable conditions it encountered and its appearance (convection, banding, etc). Overall, its a nice article, but probably not quite up to Good Article standards. More impact would be nice as well. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through and add from the advisories from the JTWC, wherever information wasn't already stated in the article. I guess I can go through again and see if I can squeeze out a little more, but there isn't much more to add. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try and get as much as you can. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review failed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it when I have time and reapply for GA status, but it would've been nice if you would've included that in your original review comments so that I could've addressed it earlier when I had more time. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]