Talk:Cyclone Cilla/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 22:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YE, I will be reviewing this article today. Here are the issues I had with the article.

"After slightly weakening, Cilla briefly re-intensified the next." - Missing some word(s) here? Maybe "the next day."?
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"However, Cilla transitioned into an extratropical cyclone on January 30." - Extratropical transition redirects to extratropical cyclone. So why link to the same article twice?
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage in Tonga was mostly limited to vegetation and fruit trees; infrastructural damage remained relatively minor." - I don't think "remained" is such a good word choice here. Maybe you could say, "; infrastructural damage was also relatively minor."?
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Cilla also brought moderate rain to American Samoa." - Wikilink "American Samoa"
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"organization due to increased wind shear/[7]" - Well, that's an interesting way to end a sentence :P
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"On January 29, thunderstorm activity once again increased in converge around the center" - Did you mean "coverage" or "convergence"?
- The former. `Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"on January 29, Cilla was reduced to tropical depression" - There is a word missing here
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage in Tonga was mostly limited to vegetation and coconut and banana tress;[11]" - Just curious, what is a "banana tress"? :P
- A typo. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Pagett, Gary. "January 2003". Monthly Global Tropical Cyclone Summary" - The last name "Padgett" is misspelled
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
David Longshore's "Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones" is considered a questionable source and may not be reliable. Considering it is only used once in this article and for a broad statement (i.e. does not cite a number of deaths or houses damage/destroyed, etc.), it should be very easy to find a more reliable source. Perhaps you can find another source in Cyclone Ami's article?
- What makes it questionable? Its quite useful IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since you fixed these issues and some others which I didn't notice at first, I am going to pass with article.--12george1 (talk) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]