Talk:Cyclone Owen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCyclone Owen has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
December 16, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
March 19, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
April 29, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

This ref[edit]

This reference → [1] was once mentioned in the article, but it was removed from it after a lead and MH reform in the GA review. This ref describes just how early Owen formed, and user:Hurricanehink's last comments in the review said "every sentence in the article must be cited". Where can I put this ref? 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 12:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything from that link that cites something in the article? If not, you don't need to include it. You only need to have a reference for what's mentioned in the article. Otherwise, useful links should go in an External Links section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It once cited the sentence "Owen was one of the earliest tropical cyclones to form in the Coral Sea". But when Jason told me to remove refs from the lead, it was removed from the lead. At that time, the Coral Sea near-record was also mentioned in the MH, but that part was removed as well, so now there is funny-looking uncited material. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think Jason meant to remove the ref from the lead, but not from the article. If that fact doesn't belong in the MH, then you should remove it from the lead too, along with the ref. You had said that Owen was one of the earliest tropical cyclones to form in the Coral Sea, but that's not true. The source even mentions a storm occurring in September, which is earlier than December, and that Owen was only the earliest since 2008. That would be like saying a storm was the earliest to form in the Gulf of Mexico in 10 years, I'm not sure we would add that, as it's fairly trivial. Unless there's anything else from that reference worth adding to the article, you can just get rid of it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing that so called record as I note that tropical cyclones have existed in the Coral Sea in July, August September October and November before now. We generally do not put records in that we have to qualify several times.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've removed it. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 09:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tropical Cyclone Owen – An Early Tropical Cyclone". weatherwatch.net.au. Weatherwatch. 3 December 2018. Retrieved 6 July 2020.

To do before GA review[edit]

Have the issues from the previous GAN been addressed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink, I think so. SMB99thx my edits! 01:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since October 5, I've sourced everything that isn't already sourced, removed that Coral Sea bit, and followed your last instructions. So, I believe, yes. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Owen/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 12:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Doing. NoahTalk 12:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problems are quite big. I'll be involved in the GA this time around as a 2018 Global FT member, as opposed to the first one when I didn't do anything about it. SMB99thx my edits! 14:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • fourth tropical low, first tropical cyclone, and first severe tropical cyclone of the 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season. Source?
  • November 29 from an area of low pressure situated Link low-pressure area and add "that was" before situated.
  • remnant low I don't believe this is a term used in the basin.
  • It regenerated on 12 December. Cyclone Owen rapidly intensified into a Category 3, and circled around the Gulf of Carpentaria. Numerous problems with this one...
  • First, the first sentence is rather stub-like and should be merged.
  • Category 3 is an adjective, not a noun. Therefore, you something like "storm", "cyclone", "system"
  • When did it become Category 3?
  • --> Owen regenerated into a tropical cyclone on 12 December, and rapidly intensified into a Category 3 storm by X, as it circled around the Gulf of Carpentaria.
  • I left the date for you to insert in.
  • What were the peak 10-minute winds? The peak pressure?
  • Then, it struck Queensland. This is also rather stub-like. When did it strike Queensland? What was the wind speed at that time? Was there a more specific location given such as X km from a town?
  • After re-entering the Coral Sea, which had colder waters than the Gulf of Carpentaria, Owen weakened relatively quickly, and turned extratropical on December 17. When did it re-enter the Coral Sea?
  • You never mention extratropical in the met? Was the storm not already weak after spending a day over land? The track map eludes to that.
  • Overall, the met in the lead needs some expansion as it is quite sparse for a storm that nearly lasted a month. The section lacks the directions it moved other than general descriptions such as "loops".
  • Owen was beneficial to some parts of Australia during its duration. The rainfall dropped on deserts helped farmers grow crops and helped put out a bushfire These two sentences can be merged.
  • --> Owen brought beneficial rainfall to parts of Australia, allowing farmers in deserts to grow crops and helping to put out a bushfire.
  • The final advisory was issued on December 17, when Owen was situated between Townsville and Cairns. However, Cyclone Owen's extratropical remnants persisted until December 20. Probably should move this up to the end of the met paragraph.
  • The erratic path of Owen is thought to come from a high-pressure area that tracked near the storm --> The erratic path of Owen was thought to have been caused by a high-pressure area that tracked near the storm.
  • Halifax, Queensland reaching 661 mm (26 in). Comma after Queensland.
  • You don't mention the death in the lead
  • You don't mention the damage total and what caused it.
    Both are now mentioned. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorological history
  • low to moderate --> low-to-moderate
  • Link Wind shear#Vertical component on vertical windshear and delete the later linkage
  • Link sea surface temperature
  • Remove the s at the end of southwards
  • Why did it track south?
  • The moderately favourable conditions caused Tropical Low 04U to further develop and gain more thunderstorms within itself.[4] These conditions contributed to 04U's convection, and at about 12:00 UTC on 2 December, 04U strengthened and was named Owen
  • I believe the whole first sentence and the first part of the second sentence are saying the same thing for the most part.
  • --> The moderately favourable conditions allowed thunderstorm activity and convection to increase in intensity and organisation, leading to the formation of Owen by 12:00 UTC on 2 December.
  • However, Owen soon encountered relatively unfavourable conditions Such as? I see you mention wind shear below, but what else?
    A mid-level ridge to the southeast. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after that, though, Simply can be "Soon after,"
  • The increasing wind shear and other factors caused Owen to weaken slightly early on 3 December.[7] Soon after that, though, Owen gained a burst of convection, and strengthened again.[8] By noon on 3 December, Owen was struggling to remain a tropical cyclone and could not intensify further.[9] As the day progressed, Owen became increasingly disorganized, and continued to weaken.[10] Are you sure that the storm really weakened? I see it going from 40 to 45 knots before stalling. It appears that ONLY the structure fluctuated, not the intensity.
  • Owen was struggling to remain a tropical cyclone The source does not support this.
  • However, in the east, there were more favourable conditions, so Owen moved slightly to the east.[11] However, to the east, Owen encountered even more unfavorable conditions, and weakened into a tropical low. Why mention the first part if it never affected the storm anyways? Also, what conditions degraded even further? Why did Owen track to the east? Be careful with how you word your sentences because you made it seem as if the storm was alive and actively chose to move eastward into favorable conditions.
  • I'm sorry. I can't find any more sources, and nothing says what the conditions are or why Owen moved. If I added those things in, it'd be WP:OR. If these nonexistent sources are required for Owen to be a GA, then you'll have to fail it. The mentions of wind shear and Dvorak analysis, if put in Owen, would be WP:TLDR, and most of what the sources say will be undecipherable except to experts. This applies to all of the "Why did Owen..." things in the review. Flunctuating overcast and wind shear due to upper-level westerlies that diminish Owen's convection and low-level circulation, would require huge amounts of explanation to our readers who aren't professional meteorologists. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my mind about my above comment. I found a way to express it without making the article tl;dr. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Cape York Peninsula
  • Link Port Douglas
  • Over the next day, the system moved eastwards I would just say continued eastward to clarify it was a continuation of the previous movement.
  • Why do we go from referring to the system as Owen back to 04U? It is still Owen regardless of intensity or status.
  • continued to move westward It pulled a 180? When? What caused this change?
  • No, it didn't. It had been moving west for a week. I've changed the article to reflect that. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was still slowly moving west and not changing intensity Wordage is a bit jumbled here.
  • Early on 12 December, though, conditions started to become more favourable Which conditions? Delete the "though" part.
  • and 04U's convection increased Rather than a conjunction... maybe something like "allowing" or a similar word.
  • Then, at about 12:00 UTC on 12 December, No "then"... it is just extra wording
  • 04U strengthened into a Category 1 tropical cyclone It reformed as a TC, not strengthened into a TC.
  • making its outer bands hit areas of Queensland and Northern Territory How did the strengthening make the bands hit those areas? Did you mean "while" its outer bands hit the areas?
  • Owen made landfall in Northern Territory at about 00:00 UTC on 13 December as a Category 3 Any specific location as the territory is a large area? A Category 3 what?
  • Category 3 is an adjective, not a noun
  • Peak pressure?
  • You don't need to say a storm is still at a status if it really isn't changing much.
  • Late on 13 December, Owen approached Queensland, still a Category 3.[25] By 14 December, convection was excellent, and Owen continued to stay a Category 3.[26] Early in the morning on 14 December, Owen's eye began to turn ragged while continuing to move eastward.[27] Owen then began to weaken into a borderline Category 3, due to decreasing sea surface temperatures.[28] This is really much less complicated here then you are making it.
  • before it turned back east and virtually retraced its steps across the Gulf of Carpentaria. Why did it turn east?
  • Then, as Owen entered the Coral Sea, Owen became subtropical and moved east-southeast "then" isn't needed here and is extra wording. You should change the second mention of Owen to a pronoun. Also, why did it move east-southeast?
    I've added that in. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Townsville
  • Why no mention of the JTWC in the article at all? They are an important agency too.
  • There used to be lots, but it turned out that I thought the BoM was the JTWC. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Effects
  • Check your usage of also throughout the article as most are likely redundant.
  • Also is only used five times (excluding the "See also" section"). How is that redundant? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything is in addition to the last statement, so also generally isn't needed. NoahTalk 11:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link flash flood and storm surge
  • $25 million worth Which currency? USD?
  • Extremely heavy winds devastated Cape York in northern Australia How so?
  • What I meant by this... what did the storm's winds do that were devastating? Damage of some kind? NoahTalk 11:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh... in reality, the source is just a forecast, saying "Extremely heavy winds are expected to devastate Cape York, with winds up to 140."

Many of the sources are like that. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • hundreds of kilometres inland Could we please convert this to miles for the US folks?
  • Noah? It was once miles, but in the previous review, Hurricanehink told me to change it to kilometres because Australia uses metric! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put a conversion in parentheses. NoahTalk 13:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it caused rain to fall at a rate of over 97 mm (3.8 in) per hour. Inland Queensland got about 40 mm (1.6 in) per hour What's significant about this? Was it sustained for a long time period?
  • in Halifax, Queensland comma after Queensland
  • Many people thought that Owen would drop catastrophic rain levels; however, Owen did not drop as much rain to such a large area, due to its relatively small size. Why is that significant?
  • which caused terrible damage Any specific instances?
  • Is there anything that could be added to increase the breadth of the impact section? It still seems quite sparse despite what has been added in during the past review.
These are all of the most severe issues I saw during the initial review. There are some things that I did not mention for the time being. The article will require significant work to be raised to the GA level. NoahTalk 15:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done – everything is done! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried, it failed. I tried again, it failed. I fixed all the concerns – it still failed. I'm not going to even work on Owen anymore, and I'm considering requesting G7 for it. Goodbye. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

Volunteering for this after an off-wiki conversation with Noah – will take a look shortly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note first that several issues from Noah's review still haven't been addressed: *sources don't belong in the lead – from MOS:LEADCITE, this is because whatever is stated in the lead is usually repeated (and appropriately referenced) further below. If this isn't mentioned below, it should have a source.

  • Overall, the met in the lead needs some expansion as it is quite sparse for a storm that nearly lasted a month. The section lacks the directions it moved other than general descriptions such as "loops". Doesn't look like this has been addressed.
  • No, it hasn't. I don't know what level of detail is appropriate in the lead. I'm sorry. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*A mid-level ridge to the southeast affects where a tropical cyclone moves much more than its intensity. Please reread the source, it isn't the unfavorable conditions you're looking for.

*Are you sure that the storm really weakened? I see it going from 40 to 45 knots before stalling. It appears that ONLY the structure fluctuated, not the intensity. Any clarification?

*Be careful with how you word your sentences because you made it seem as if the storm was alive and actively chose to move eastward into favorable conditions – still applies, the storm isn't sentient. Furthermore, the technical bulletin cited doesn't mention that in the east, there were more favourable conditions.

  • My sources don't explain anything! I'm not sure where I'm even getting these "moved north/east/south/west" things from. I have no idea what I should put anywhere in this article. In fact, I'd like to know why Noah put this "on hold" (the article is close to passing) because everyone's saying that the article is barely out of stub class! 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*How did the strengthening make the bands hit those areas? Did you mean "while" its outer bands hit the areas? Not addressed yet

*Any specific location as the territory is a large area?

  • Is the peak pressure 958 hPa (as in the lead and infobox) or 960 hPa (in the MH)?
  • Your "nonexistent sources" are your BoM technical bulletins and JTWC tropical cyclone warnings, archives of which can be found at Talk:2018–19 Australian region cyclone season/December. The meteorological history is naturally quite technical and can involve lots of jargon, but this doesn't mean it needs "huge amounts of explanation" – wikilinks and simplified language can be a substitute for that. From this section, an average reader with no preexisting knowledge of tropical cyclones should be able to determine when/where Owen formed and dissipated, where it moved, how strong it was, and where it made landfall. Meanwhile, an expert reader should not be able to point out factual inaccuracies. (But consider most people with no meteorological background will be looking at the lead rather than the MH.)
  • All this was once in the article, in the preps section, but it was all removed per WP:OR. Goodbye, I'll do the effects later. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give the article a look-over myself later. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the Effects section, I notice significant issues with verifiability. Many sentences are not supported by their sources. In most instances, this is because the source is a forecast and does not indicate that the event has actually happened. Ref numbers are as of this revision and may not hold for future revisions.

  • Ref 32 (ausstormscience.com) does not mention that Owen caused flash floods or $25 million USD worth of damage (35.5 million in Australian dollars). It also doesn't cover Owen past December 13, so the sentences covering minor damage in Queensland near dissipation/as an extratropical cyclone are not supported. There's no mention of the 20 mm rainfall total in NT too.
  • Ref 33 (Cairns Post) doesn't mention the wind gust of 140 km/h
  • Ref 34 (BBC) is a forecast and isn't evidence that Owen's landfalls brought effects hundreds of kilometres (miles) inland. Also, it's not the landfall that brings effects inland, but rather the storm itself. Doesn't mention When Owen made landfall in the Northern Territory on December 10, there were minor effects in Queensland either.
  • Ref 36 (The Morning Bulletin) is a forecast and not an indication that heavy rainfall did occur; forecasts can and often fail to materialize.
  • Ref 37 (NASA) indicates that the rain rate of 97 mm/hr occurred on 12 December and not 17 December; the mention is actually not at the linked article but down here.
  • Refs 38 (BOM Weekly Tropical Cyclone Note) and 39 (The Watchers) indicate the rainfall total was 681 mm from 9:00 a.m. December 15 to 9:00 a.m. December 16 (local time), not 661 mm on December 16, and that the record is not for rainfall across the entire month of December but for a 24-hour period in December.
  • Ref 40 (Daily Mercury) is a forecast, again doesn't show that "Catastrophic rainfall occurred" (and what was catastrophic about the rainfall, anyway?)
  • Ref 41 (news.com.au) does not mention that Owen "put out several bushfires", neither does it mention that "Owen caused many landslides, which produced moderate damage", and doesn't show that Owen caused any flash floods. Again this is by virtue of the source being mostly a forecast.
  • Ref 42 (The Watchers again) has a landfall at Port Douglas which is in Queensland, not the Northern Territory.
  • Ref 43 (ABC News) – no evidence of the locations being affected "repeatedly at various intensities", also Port Roper is on the island of Groote Eylandt. No mention of Port McArthur. No idea why these locations are being cherrypicked when the source mentions several more significant things e.g. schools in Borroloola and Numbulwar were closed to be repurposed as shelters and warnings in many other different locations.
  • Ref 44 is the same as Ref 43 and is from before landfall so doesn't support anything written about during/after landfall.
  • Ref 45 doesn't indicate warnings being lifted.

With the verifiability issues covering nearly the entire effects section the article would normally be eligible for quick fail as it is nowhere near meeting GA criteria 2 (verifiable with no original research). In light of this, I would recommend the entire section be rewritten with sources that actually support the material—preferably with help from one or more experienced editors—and this review be closed, with future nominations opened only with approval by said experienced editor(s). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chicdat, consider joining 2018 Global FT task force with us! They can assist you to help make Cyclone Owen GA. SMB99thx my edits! 02:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. Please. Can Owen still become a GA? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat: To be very honest, the answer is resounding yes. Just rewrite the Cyclone Owen effects, and we can get this done (I'll rewrite them by myself, while you fix these issues that is not "Effects"). When I'm done rewriting, I'll nominate this for GA. SMB99thx my edits! 13:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMB99thx: (It's annoying to always have to wait a day for replies) Where do I ask for help? The talk page is a redirect to here. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, Do you have a Discord? If you do, then you can join 2018 Global FT Discord or WikiProject Tropical cyclones Discord. SMB99thx my edits! 12:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For personal reasons, I don't do Wikipedia-related off-wiki discussions (if that makes sense). I've been messaged about this twice before. The second was (Redacted). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, if you doesn't do off-wiki discussions, then I recommend you to talk with Jason Rees directly. He's the most active editor when it comes to SHEM articles and when I searched for help about NIO, Hurricanehink suggested this user.. SMB99thx my edits! 12:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, okay. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@Chicdat: Based on an answer from Jason Rees, I would like you to wait until Jason is finished with Cyclone Yasa. You said to me that you would like to see Tropical cyclones in 2002 becoming a FL, and from what I'm seeing it's still not done yet. Let's be patient. SMB99thx my edits! 02:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The trick to writing a decent MH is not to mention every single change in a tropical cyclone on an hour by hour basis or day by day basis as this approach leads to difficulties. If you look at Yasu or Harold, you will notice that I have written the MH's in a general style and found things to connect the days.Jason Rees (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But how should I really write it? It'd be ridiculous and disruptive to copy the MH from Yasa or Harold to here. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be disruptive to copy their styles, which is what I was hinted at.Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm being picky here, but I do better when given specific things to do than when I'm given the instructions "Write it like this article." Didn't you see that in the GA review, I fixed the "change X to Y" issues first? Though I see that you're working on it yourself at User:Jason Rees/Yasu. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And when will I ever get Owen to GA? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Owen will be rated as a GA once all of the issues with the article are fixed and someone such as @KN2731 and Hurricane Noah: verifies that they are. I would strongly suggest that you try and put some time and love into expanding your knowledge & writing the article, rather than messing around with AFC or relying on me to rework it as Owen is not one of my priorities. Also remember that you don't own the article and that throwing your toys out the pram about it becoming a GA wont help.Jason Rees (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I don't know if there's anything different I can say. I want to be able to improve Owen, but I don't know how. I know that above I have instructions, I know that everyone's annoyed with me regarding the article, I know that I should be doing more content creation, I know that I'm overwhelmed about finding sources I can't find, I know that I'm probably violating WP:WALLOFTEXT right now, I know that I'm wasting time talking, I know that I should be improving Owen, and I'm sorry for wasting your time. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is something different you can say @Chicdat: which is that you actively work to improve Owen, as we have provided you with suggestions above as to how to improve it, but you keep making excuses for not doing them. For starters, these non-existant sources are located are the BoM technical bulletins and JTWC tropical cyclone warnings, which can be found at Talk:2018–19 Australian region cyclone season/December. This in addition to the TCR that we have provided for you and the MH which we have started to improve using them. Jason Rees (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're very welcome to make this GA without me. But, at the request of... someone, I've printed out the article and rewritten it with a pencil and paper. Later, I'll rewrite it onwiki. Maybe that will help. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would help is for you to go through the sources that we have provided for you, find whats relevant to telling the story and expanding the MH to tell the story of Owen rather than printing it out or picking and choosing the advice you want to take. Yes I could rework Owen and bring it up to scratch, but I think it is better for you to develop your knowledge and bring your knowledge of meterology and geography up to scratch as otherwise we will just end up back in this postion when you next try a TC article.Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will try. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would recommend that any references to watchers.news/The Watchers be removed as they cannot be considered a reliable source. since they apparently do not fact-check seriously. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees, KN2731, and MarioJump83: I quit. I quit Owen. Every time I encounter Jason Rees, he says, "Just finish Owen." Today, when I came across these comments at WT:WPTC, I thought, "I've had enough of Owen." and quit. I may be resilient, but I'm not good at GA. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad, since Cyclone Owen is a part of 2018 Global FT. I am going to fix Cyclone Owen by myself. Since you can't handle it, this has to be my project now... MarioJump83! 11:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait... no. I take that back. I want Cyclone Owen to become a GA, and I believe this would be a perfect way for me to learn. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat: You keep throwing your toys out of the pram and making excuses, rather than working on Owen and following our advice.Jason Rees (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the main talk page. You'll see what I'm doing right there. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To do for GAN:[edit]

Lead[edit]

It needs to be longer, as Owen lasted nearly a month. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done JoeMT615 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological History (MH)[edit]

As Jason Rees said, it needs references to the JTWC. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The JTWC warnings and now their best track analysis will help tell the tale of Owen.Jason Rees (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'm adding info first, then when it's time to do so, I'll rewrite. PAIN. MarioJump83! 02:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and spell and grammar checked. I saw a lot of JTWC refs in there so I think it's good for now. JoeMT615 (talk) 12:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects[edit]

Needs a complete rewrite. I'll have to get help from LD2K or MarioJump83 on this. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I removed the forecasts, the paragraphs have been pretty short. this page has some high sea wind warnings (from the BoM) that I could use to make a preparations section. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Northern Territory section specifically needs development. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
High sea forecasts won't help you prepare a preparations section, you have to basically remember that Owen was so weak at the time of the first landfall on Queensland that it didn't require watches or warnings. In fact I wonder if its not better to just combine the NT and QLD sections into Australia or similar.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then that'd be the only impacts content. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forecasts are part of the preps, I believe. But only one of them aren't it. MarioJump83! 02:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MarioJump83[edit]

We know that the effects section needs to be completely redone. @LightandDark2000: Where I can search for the information about Cyclone Owen's effects? I want to see this article becoming GA, and I don't want to see the repeat of Chicdat's problems (effects are forecasts). MarioJump83! 11:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend as is the BoM.Jason Rees (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please give me specific criteria for me to do? Without that, I always procrastinate, as you've seen. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No replies for a week, pinging Jason Rees and MarioJump83. Oh, and also Hurricanehink. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to avoid sources that use forecasts in their content. Use sources that described impacts of Owen only. MarioJump83! 11:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed forecasts. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! It looks closer to Cyclone Ava now, which to be quite honest I worked hard to get that article GA. MarioJump83! 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, in Owen the MH is just three lines shorter. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I starting to realize that this is our work, not just your work... based on our interactions. MarioJump83! 03:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GAN[edit]

Is this ready for GAN? I'm being very cautious about this. But it's been improved all the way to B, and that's just a heartbeat away from GA. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:23, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. You may want to check Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Cyclone_Owen before nominating it, but I suggest that you shouldn't do it for now. MarioJump83! 13:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait until summer or May. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:35, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll nominate this for you. BTW, please hold off from working this article all the way to FA. I don't think there is enough information necessary for that to happen. MarioJump83! 03:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "FA" from my todo list. Thank you for nominating. I'll do what I can do with Owen. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did the right thing here. I have gone to all things about Owen and I could not find anything that would ever make Owen FA (top notch sources are required). I think GA is at very least the best case where this article will end up being. MarioJump83! 02:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA is enough for me. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Owen/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CommanderWaterford (talk · contribs) 08:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Chicdat: and @MarioJump83:, I will put this GA Review temporarily on hold - there are several minor issues which still need to be fixed: 1. Please provide time stamps in the subtitles for each and every photo of the Cyclone 2. I marked inside several Failed verifications and When Templates - we need somewhat to be more precise "Early the following day"=When exactly? // "Shortly after", same issue. 3. There is no attack mentioned, "only" the presence of crocodiles in the waters 4. "rainfall in Halifax reaching 661 mm" - not mentioned in the inlined citation. Thanks, CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses.
To number 3, there was no attack.
To number 4, please see the previous GA reviews for the reason. If you are going to review an article for GA, and it has previous reviews, you should at least look at them.
Thank you, 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chicdat, don't excuse these things with that reason, I'll fix them. @CommanderWaterford: That was quick, fixed. MarioJump83! 13:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat If there was no attack why did you mention an attack?? This is usually a clear Fail-criteria for a GA. I read the Reviews before and I honestly was pretty shocked about the amount of issues the article had when you nominated it for GA, in other words: Without the help of the several other editors your original article would never pass GA.
@MarioJump83 Thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chicdat: CommanderWaterford is right here. I have been taking all my efforts into here to put you in greatest position to succeed and get your first article into GA status.
@CommanderWaterford: you may continue your review. MarioJump83! 14:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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 captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·
Third time is a charm. MarioJump83! 10:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Owen&oldid=1211217631"