Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyclone Owen/archive1

Cyclone Owen

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because Chicdat has tried to put this up for GAN many times and it failed. L&D2000 is probably not going to help due to time issues. I am the only one trying to actually help but I had trouble with this, so PR will probably the best and the last chance here.

I do not want any more back-and-forth drama regarding Owen, it's going to take away attention from the real issues we need to fix. By the way, let me edit my own comments in order to clarify what I am saying (I am not refactoring other people's comments). Mario Jump 83! 04:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me @MarioJump83: but Hink and I have both helped out a lot with Owen. However, @Chicdat: can not expect either of us to stand there and waste our time typing out specific things to do, when he has ignored our previous comments about what to do. Remember Hink and I both have lifes outside of wiki and that you can only take a duck to water but cannot make it drink it. I standby my previous comment that Chicdat needs to go through the MH with a very fine tooth comb. While using google to research the impacts of Owen on Queensland and a map to learn where Queensland and the Northern Territory are in relation to each other. Jason Rees (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

??? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 15:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we know. Can you just stop preventing us from getting help - in this case, from peer reviewers? (which by the way does not involve just you and Hink, but anyone else can join - also includes people who take most of their lives in Wikipedia.)

Like you, I have my own lives outside Wikipedia too, but it looks like you are trying to outright make a barrier here rather than to actually help or give a chance. I'm not going to drag you here, but it's clear that I want this back-and forth to stop - this is getting way too long now. I and Chicdat want this article to become GA already. We want this done! I have just talked to a peer reviewer to get a real help. Mario Jump 83! 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im not trying to hound or make any barriers for you to get help, but you guys keep ignoring the comments we are trying to provide you by telling to work on the MH and go through it with a very fine toothcomb. That is the only way this article will become a GA. Besides you are throwing accusations around that we didn't help much when we have tried to bend over backwards to help you both out with it. Jason Rees (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't ignore your comments actually. But, I am frankly very tired regarding Owen this-and-that which might affect my life outside Wikipedia too. I am going to admit that I am normally a kind person but seeing months-long arguments about Cyclone Owen's GA made my feelings hurt and made me do things you said above. It was a call to finish this argument full-stop, it is too much... Mario Jump 83! 04:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone outside of WikiProject, which I acknowledge is tired of dealing with this, can give things on this review? Any help will be very appreciated. Mario Jump 83! 02:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My help, maybe. I will do whatever I can. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 14:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, but I believe you're the best when it comes to the prose or grammar. Regarding sources leave it to me. I don't want you to face Jason's wrath. Mario Jump 83! 22:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue here is that this article might have to be entirely rewritten, both meteorological history and impacts (Which I figured this out, only MH is not). The article is also not comprehensive unfortunately. I, as of now, is adding these sources to the article with some text (especially JTWC). However, the next problem I have going to have once the article is comprehensive is going to be the structure of the text within the article, thus making the article incoherent. Thus, I am sending this to PR in hopes that some of the text can be kept. Mario Jump 83! 04:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be more details than that for the impact, right? $25 million should lead to some type of description of the damage. There's also no preparations for a section title with the word in it. I suggest you use WP:TWL, especially ProQuest. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 00:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I have thought before PR - the impacts aren't that comprehensive. I have WP:TWL and I never thought I have to use ProQuest (Google can be my friend but it's tough) until this, so thanks for suggestion! Mario Jump 83! 00:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically, the preps should be in the "Effects" section, but there are actually no preps anywhere in Owen. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "preps" I have found so far are mix of preps and warnings. Will do a more thorough research later. Mario Jump 83! 12:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

I have not looked into whatever controversy is mentioned above; just looking at what is on the page. I have not read the GA reviews. I do not participate in GAs and have no knowledge of the GA criteria (I do FAs). This means a good deal of what I review may have no bearing on GA status.

A lot of the sources seem to be primary; I defer to Cyclone WP on whether that is usual.

If I remember correctly, it is usual. Mario Jump 83! 01:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citations should be formatted: https://wmoomm.sharepoint.com/:w:/r/sites/wmocpdb/_layouts/15/Doc.aspx?sourcedoc=%7B19D71011-A72D-46B4-A783-3292F3A50144%7D&file=RAV_TCC-18_DOC.2.3_CountryReport_PNG.doc
Consistency in citations ... same source, but listed differently (one as ABC News, other as abc.net.au):
- "Tropical Cyclone Owen reaches category two, cyclone shelters opened in northeast Top End". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 11 December 2018. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
- "Tropical Cyclone Owen reaches category three on NT coast, may develop to category four today". abc.net.au. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 12 December 2018. Retrieved 15 July 2020.
WP:ITALICS are used on hard print sources. In citation templates, that is accomplished by using work= instead of publisher=
I have read a lot of hurricane/cyclone articles, and most of them seem to be "long-lived and erratic" ... I don't know the distinction being made in the first sentence, nor is that explained in the lead: Severe Tropical Cyclone Owen was a long-lived and erratic tropical cyclone ... usually there are some qualifiers.

Prose

Copyedit needed ... you might contact the WP:GOCE.
- during it's peak.
- See the overuse of however; User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia, along with overuse of the word also and subsequently. See also User:John/however.
Redundant prose in the lead ... Owen formed ... Owen strengthened ... Owen regenerated ... Owen struck ... Owen weakened ... it takes a lot of creative writing to vary the prose in cyclone articles, but it can be done.
More redundancy ... Owen caused significant impacts ... Owen caused significant rainfall and subsequent flooding upon making the first landfall in Queensland. (See note above about subsequently.)
Unclear why this is in the lead. Flooding from the creeks caused the Queensland Heritage Register-listed road bridge Stone Bridge, Dalrymple Gap Track to be flooded.
Wind gusts from Owen brought down trees in Yarrabah. Owen's impacts as a severe tropical cyclone are largely minor, with Northern Territory receiving only gusts and heavy rain, while cutting some roads in the remote areas and brought 2,400 residents out of power in Queensland. ... Switching tenses and mixing too many thoughts in the same sentence, unfamiliar with "brought out of power" grammar.
See User:Tony1 writing exercises ... The ~~total~~ economic impact of Severe Tropical Cyclone Owen was estimated to be around AU$32.5 million (US$25 million). ... was estimated at ... around is redundant to estimated.

I haven't gone beyond the lead because I can see that more attention to sourcing is needed, as well as a thorough copyedit. Good luck with GAN! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending this to GOCE, I am also going to close the peer review. Mario Jump 83! 01:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]