Talk:Cyclone Alby/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

• Watch for overlinking (Western Australia is linked in two consecutive sentences)
  • Only instance of overlinking that I see Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Glad you double-checked anyway... that was the first thing I noticed :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• Were the two indirect fire fatalities actually related to Alby?
  • Yes, the fires were fueld by Alby and the BOM includes the fires as part of the overall impact. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, just checking. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "According to the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre (JTWC), the system was classified as a tropical storm early on 29 March" - three things. First, isn't it "Center" and not "Centre"? Second, when did BoM say it became a TS? Third, if the JTWC classified it as a TS, how can it be "according to the JTWC"? It's just a fact that the JTWC classified it as a TS.
  • First- Local dialect; Second- Added; Third- Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • You shouldn't use local dialect to change an official name, though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Changed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "This rapid acceleration was attributed the cyclone's interaction with a cold front to its south" - missing word "was attributed to...", although might I suggest "was due to the cyclone's..."
  • Fixed with the latter Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Much better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The intense winds, seemingly unprecedented for many in the region" - I'm tripped up on the "seemingly". Might "considered" work better?
  • Used considered Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Thx. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "The asymmetrical structure, with most thunderstorm activity to the south, of Alby combined with its fast movement limited rainfall." - commafail?
  • Moreso word placement fail Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I still think that sentence is poorly structured. Is there any way you can make it flow better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I can't think of anything, any suggestions? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "as well as the future growth of 200,000 m3 (7 million ft3) to established trees" - I'm really confused what that means
  • That's the loss of future potential timber from already matured trees. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Could you clarify/make it a little easier to read then in the article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I made an attempt at rewording, hopefully it's better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• "Tides across the region were expected to be increased but not substantially; however, all values were exceeded by at least 0.3 m (0.98 ft)." - can you condense that a bit and make it simpler?
  • Split into two sentences and reworded. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Kl. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• How much, if any, of the damage was from the fires?
  • Unknown as far as I can tell Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All in all, though, a good read. Just those simple little things should do it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hink! :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, just a few things I'd like clarification on. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)