Talk:Cyclone Jasper

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Jasper/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 08:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Immediately failed per immediate failure criteria 1 and 4: it has numerous grammar and composition errors (wrong grammatical tense throughout the MH, "tourists towns", etc.) and is not stable because the storm is still ongoing, with its remnant low possibly expected to emerge over the Gulf of Carpinteria. GA's for tropical cyclones need to wait until their post-season reanalysis and best track are released.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. I see. 🎩Incognito Fedora🎩 (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated info and improving accuracy and context[edit]

Deleted the sentence of "One fatality occurred when a severe thunderstorm swept throughout the southeast of the state in the Brisbane suburb of Murarrie.", as this was from a thunderstorm associated with a trough system completely unrelated to the cyclone. Also deleted the storm impact section for the same reason.

Added in the fact that the station called Yandill received 624mm in 1 day, which is the 2nd heaviest daily December reading on record in Australia

I changed "a total damage figure for the storm" to cyclone. Also changed "moderate to heavy rainfall" to "moderate to locally intense rainfall" to better fit with the high rain totals, as well as the BOM warnings. Hitchy04 (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any source that proves that "one fatality" is not related to the cyclone? HurricaneEdgar 21:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fatality is related to a completely unrelated trough system that passed over S QLD. The death happened certainly, but it was not as a direct or indirect result of Jasper. It is false information.
Brisbane is more than 1100km from the nearest flood warning. Hitchy04 (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following your concern I've removed the questionable context. HurricaneEdgar 00:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was Merge. HurricaneEdgar 23:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formal request has been received to merge: 2023 Cairns floods into Cyclone Jasper; dated: December 2023. Proposer's Rationale: The flooding around Cairns was triggered by Jasper and its remnant low stalling and enhancing rainfall in the area for several days. Precedent has been set in the past with 2013 Eastern Australia floods redirecting to Cyclone Oswald and 2017 Eastern Australia floods to Cyclone Debbie. ~Andyman14. Discuss here. GenQuest "scribble" 03:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merger of 2023 Cairns floods into Cyclone Jasper, since the floods were caused by Jasper.Jason Rees (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - The article about the Cairn's floods is directly caused by Jasper and can be easily merged with the main article. Twix82 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Due to these floods being caused solely by Jasper, I feel that instead of a separate article, a section of Cyclone Jasper can just include this information 🍙🌀CycloneIns 03:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - Jasper was directly responsible for the flooding in North Queensland, especially after a coastal trough developed behind the remnant low which had stalled. This trough, combined with the low drawing moisture from the north, exacerbated the already high rainfall, which ended up stalling over Cairns' Northern suburbs and resulted in the flooding Reckless4800 (talk) 08:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree – As the floods were brought about by the cyclone, it makes sense to write about the flooding within the context of the cyclone. Drdpw (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems that everyone agrees that the floods should be merged, should this discussion be closed? ''Flux55'' (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.