Talk:October 1996 India cyclone

October 1996 India cyclone 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.

October 1996 India cyclone is part of the 1996 North Indian Ocean cyclone season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 30, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
May 18, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / North Indian Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the North Indian Ocean work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:October 1996 India cyclone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks solid at first glance. I'll post any comments I have as I read.

I'm all for using more colorful language in our articles, but in my experience, "lengthy" has a non-neutral connotation of tedium or superfluousness. No strong opinion on whether it should be removed, just thought I'd mention that.

How's "protracted"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It originated as an area of convection - to be super-pedantic, TCs are always areas of convection, not just when they form. Maybe just "It originated in a weather disturbance that formed..."?

Works for me! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

leaving thousands homeless and forcing 100,000 people to leave their homes - I think I know what you're trying to say, but this is a little confusing for its repetitiveness. Maybe distinguish better between the temporary evacuations and permanent displacements.

I just used the thousands homeless figure. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the region, the storm damaged 53,000 houses,[1] displacing about 100,000 people.[3] About 86,000 people sought shelter after the storm,[2] and thousands were left homeless. - ...eh, actually, I'm kind of lost here. These figures don't mesh well.

TBH I forget where I was going with that, so I removed the "displacing" bit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1,600,000 ha (4,000,000 acres) of crop fields – 450,000 ha (1,100,000 acres) of rice and 1,150,000 ha (2,800,000 acres) of ground nuts - Those two hectare figures add up to 1,160,000, but 1,100,000 + 2,800,000 only makes 3,900,000 acres. I wouldn't normally worry about rounding errors with such large values, but 100,000 acres is quite a bit of land.

It was a rounding error. The figure would be 3,953, but the other two values caused it to be rounded down. I used more exact figures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have some follow-up info on the missing fishermen, if available.

I checked, and couldn't find anything for the rest of 1996. Sadly, while researching these storms, the newspapers said how fishermen tend to be ignored in the media. Some die, others just turn up randomly. So there might be a report of missing fishermen, but there isn't always a follow up, and the government doesn't always want to declare them dead or otherwise. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done some minor copyediting, mostly for grammar and syntax, so feel free to revert me if I inadvertently changed the meaning of anything. Placing this on-hold for now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]