Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Monica/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:21, 11 December 2010 [1].

Cyclone Monica[edit]

Featured article candidates/Cyclone Monica/archive1

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica, one of the most intense storms in Australian history, was about as "perfect" of a cyclone as you can ever get. The storm broke the satellite intensity estimate scale, exceeding an 8.0 on a scale of 1-8, and struck land at this strength. Despite its extreme intensity, there was relatively minimal structural damage; however, catastrophic environmental damage took place. Thousands of square kilometres of trees were destroyed by the storms' 360 km/h (225 mph) wind gusts, some of which were over 200 years old. According to studies of the region, it will take another 100 years for the region to recover from Monica. That said, I believe that this article meets the FAC requirements and is ready for nomination. All comments on the article are welcome and encouraged. Hope you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met, up to the usual standards of the wikiproject hurricanes Fasach Nua (talk) 12:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you mention the bit about Monica possibly being the strongest SHEM storm twice, with very similar wording.
- "Using the dvorak technique, the peak intensity of the cyclone was estimated over 320 km/h (200 mph) along with a minimum pressure below 869 mbar (hPa; 25.66 inHg); if accurate, those measurements would have made Monica the most powerful cyclone ever recorded worldwide. At its peak, Monica exceeded a T# of 8.0, the highest ranking on the Dvorak Scale, meaning the storm was more intense than could be recorded.[12]"
- "using the dvorak technique, the peak intensity of the cyclone was estimated over 320 km/h (200 mph) along with a minimum pressure below 869 hPa (mbar). At its peak, Monica exceeded a T# of 8.0, the highest ranking on the Dvorak Scale, meaning the storm was more intense than could be recorded. Although unofficial, this would make Monica the strongest known tropical cyclone in history, eclipsing Typhoon Tip of 1979.[12]
The former (in the MH) asserts the uncertainty, although it doesn't include a source about being the "most powerful ever in the world". Likewise, the source is just a stream of data, so it doesn't say anything "the storm was more intense than could be recorded", so that could use explanation. You should eliminate the redundancies, first of all, and you should also explain these sections better, and with more sourcing. You say that the JTWC estimate would have made it the most intense in the SHEM, but you don't say how the JTWC is unofficial. Officially, the strongest in the SHEM is still Zoe. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've started to clear things up, just need a bit more guidance from here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

Ref 22: Italicise The Age
Ref 24: Italicise Travel Weekly (I assume this is a journal)
Ref 26: Publisher lacking (CBS News)
Ref 36: What physical form does this source take?

Limited spotchecking on available sources didn't identify further problems. Other than the above issues, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—Does not meet several WIAFA criteria, in my opinion: Sasata (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1(a) well-written: here are issues I found from just the lead. There are similar problems throughout the article:

lead sentence: "Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica was the most intense tropical cyclone, in terms of maximum winds," What is meant by maximum winds? Maximum wind speed?
"The storm quickly developed into a Category 1 cyclone" could we non-specialists have a link to explain cyclone categories?
deep convection - link?

Same thing as convection (which is linked) basically, just more of it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Early on 22 April, the Bureau of Meteorology assessed Monica" what Bureau? Australian? (link)
"The JTWC also upgraded Monica" What is the JTWC?
"… barometric pressure of 916 hPa (mbar)" shouldn't units be wlinked on first usage (especially in the lead, which should be especially accessible to all readers)?
"Less than 24-hours after landfall," why the hyphen?
"the storm had weakened to a tropical low." link tropical low
"No injuries were reported throughout the storm's existence" But were any reported afterwards? Might be better to say "… were reported to have occurred during the storm's existence"
"However, severe environmental losses took place." Losses took place? Awkward.
"In the Northern Territory, about 7,000 km2 (4,349 mi2) of trees" The first number looks like an approximation, and contrasts with the converted number that has 4 sig figs. Also, I'd suggest rewording to (something like) "In the Northern Territory, an area of about 7,000 km2 was defoliated by …", as the expression 7,000 km2 of trees doesn't parse well. Maybe "snapped and uprooted" if you don't like "defoliated"
why does this article about an Australian cyclone not use British English?

1(b) comprehensive: There are several articles in the scholarly literature that have not been used as sources that should be used to expand the impacts and aftermath sections:

Title: Resprouting responses of trees in a fire-prone tropical savanna following severe tornado damage

Author(s): Franklin, DC; Gunton, RM; Schatz, J, et al.

Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 35 Issue: 6 Pages: 685-694 Published: 2010

Title: The impact of wind on trees in Australian tropical savannas: lessons from Cyclone Monica

Author(s): Cook, GD; Goyens, CMAC

Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Pages: 462-470 Published: 2008

Title: Estimates of tree canopy loss as a result of Cyclone Monica, in the Magela Creek catchment northern Australia

Author(s): Staben, GW; Evans, KG

Source: AUSTRAL ECOLOGY Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Pages: 562-569 Published: 2008

Title: Short-term effects of a category 5 cyclone on terrestrial bird populations on Marchinbar Island, Northern Territory.

Author(s): Palmer, Carol; Brennan, Kym; Morrison, Scott

Source: Northern Territory Naturalist Volume: 19 Pages: 15-24 Published: June 2007

1(c) well-researched: I carefully checked the citations to reference #1, the source used most frequently. I'm having trouble verifying the following information in the article:

Article: "Late on 17 April, Monica intensified into a Category 2 Cyclone, with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained).[1][3]" Cannot find in the cited sources where is Category 2 Cyclone is associated with this date; is the "10-minute sustained" implied in the tracking info of reference #3?
Article: "Once back over water, favorable atmospheric conditions allowed the storm to quickly intensify.[1]" where does the source say that?
Article: "Within six hours of passing this town, the Bureau of Meteorology downgraded Monica to a tropical low, no longer producing gale-force winds." is this derived from the source sentence "…by the time it passed through Jabiru only 9 hours later, it had weakened to a Category 2 cyclone. At this point the cyclone began to track in a more westward direction towards Darwin, but weakened to below cyclone intensity only 3 hours later." ? Does the latter mean the former?
Article: "The remnants eventually dissipated on 28 April over central Australia.[1]" Cannot find this in the cited source.

Shown in the track at the top of the report Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "Wind gusts up to 108 km/h (67 mph) were recorded as the storm traversed the peninsula.[1]" Cannot find this in the cited source.

"109 km/h gust at Lockhart River, 3pm EST 19 April" - Under Maximum reported wind gusts Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive review Sasata, I'll continue to work through these when time allows. So far, I've addressed the issues regarding the lead. If you have the time, could you give further comments on the quality of the rest of the article? It would be best for someone other than myself to look through and find places that need fixing (since I would likely be biased towards less errors). I'll see what I can do with those scholarly articles in the coming days as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a lot of time to commit to another in-depth review in the near future (it took me about an hour to come up with the above last night); I've already committed to 3 GA reviews, have an active GAN, and have a number of articles on the backburner that I'm working on. If this nomination gets archived, I'm be happy to help out with a thorough proofreading without any time pressure from FAC constraints. If it helps, I can email you the PDFs for the three Austral Ecology articles mentioned above. Sasata (talk)

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no real external link problems, though ema.gov.au is currently timing out (I'm inclined to believe that's temporary) and one of the bom.gov.au sources is slightly redirecting, as is the bloomberg link. --Pres N 22:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.