Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cyclone Tracy/archive1

Cyclone Tracy

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

This article fails to meet Criterion 2a ("compellling, even brilliant" prose). Here are examples.

• "Approximately 30,000 people were homeless and fitting into makeshift housing"
• "The city was subsequently rebuilt with modern materials and techniques." A bit lame for the lead—as if you'd use outmoded techniques. Why not remove "subsequently" as redundant?
• "Tracy killed 71 people, and destroyed over 70 percent of Darwin's buildings, leaving over 20,000 people in the city of 48,000 homeless." There are enough commas in this sentence without the unnecessary one after "people". "More than" is preferred to "over" by most style manuals, with good reason. "The city of 48,000 homeless".
• It's odd to see the size of the event calibrated against a map of the US.
• US spelling of "centered", and inconsistent with other occurrences. And would a cloud mass be centred in the ocean, or over it?
• Quote from newspaper in the lead has no reference, and not even a date.

Plus loads more. The whole article needs a thorough copy-edit. Tony 11:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• As the author of most of the article, I'd be inclined to just send this one to FARC. It was written at a time when the featured article standards were vastly different. IIRC, the article was basically thrown together by myself and another editor in a week. To meet today's featured standard, it really needs to be rewritten based on a broader variety of sources, with appropriate referencing. Rebecca 11:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Well, in response to some comments below: you can't downgrade a FA to GA, as they're two entirely different process. However, I'll give it a complete makeover as soon as I can (I've started already). Titoxd^(?!?) 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• I will try to help where I can. I have also started a dicussion on the articles talk page to list things to do. Aeon 19:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
• Honestly, while it's nice to see the prose receiving a bit of a reworking, I think it would take a full rewrite to see this article even be of GA status. Rebecca 12:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk message left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Sandy 21:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC commentary

NB Please ignore this little section for the moment, which arises because I prematurely moved the article to the FARC list.

Moved here on advice of the main author. Tony 11:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove—fails Criterion 2a. Tony 11:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Just needs a little fixing up... íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove I say down grade to GA status. This one needs fixing up Aeon 15:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Remove. I don't even think it passes GA criteria, so it should go down to B class. A complete redo is needed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this whole process isn't working (boo-hoo) but the whole point is no keep/remove before a review. Let's do the review comments first and it will be moved down in due course. Marskell 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

As a result of the FAR, the article has undergone an extensive revision. Titoxd^(?!?) 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So what happens to the remove votes created before this was moved down to FARC? darkliight^[πalk] 07:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They weren't votes; here, consensus is the aim. All of the comments in the review and FARC processes, and the work on the article in the meantime, are taken into account when deciding how to close this nomination. I'm afraid that the new lead doesn't give me much confidence that the prose, at least, now satisfies 2a.

"Cyclone Tracy was a tropical cyclone that devastated the city of Darwin, Australia, from 24 December to 25 December 1974. After forming over the Arafura Sea, the storm moved southward and affected the city with Category 4 winds in the Australian cyclone intensity scale, although there is evidence to suggest that it had reached Category 5 when it made landfall.

Tracy caused 837 million dollars in damages (1974 AUD), killed 71 people, destroyed over 70 percent of Darwin's buildings and infrastructure, thus leaving more than 20,000 people homeless, out of the 48,000 inhabitants of the city prior to Tracy's landfall, and required the evacuation of over 30,000 people.[3] Most of Darwin's population was evacuated to Adelaide, Whyalla, Alice Springs and Sydney, and many never returned to Darwin. After the storm passed, the city was rebuilt using more modern materials and updated building techniques."

• • More concise to write "from 24 to 25 December 1974".
  • "On", not "in" the intensity scale.
  • If there's "evidence" of something, please provide a reference.
  • "Damages" are what courts award; you mean "damage".
  • "More than" is preferred to "over" by most style manuals.
  • Aren't "buildings" part of "infrastructure"?
  • Remove "to Darwin" as redundant.

Looking further down at random:

• • "Tracy was the most compact tropical cyclone on record, with gale-force winds extending only 48 km (30 mi) from the centre"—Why is this the final, stubby paragraph in "Storm history"?
  • "Originally, the reported death toll was numbered at 65, but it was revised upwards in March 2005, as the Northern Territory Coroner officially proclaimed the remaining missing persons as "perished at sea"." Why not state when "originally" was? Remove "numbered at" as redundant. What does "as" mean here (because? while?)? Is "officially" necessary here? (Does the Coroner make unofficial announcements too?) Are "the remaining" part of the 65? I'm confused.
• "There were several factors that delayed the dissemination"—Why not "Several factors delayed the dissemination"?

I feel a heel, because a bit of work has gone into this during the review process, but I can't withdraw my earlier recommendation to Remove: too much needs fixing. It is better than it was, though, which is why we have the FAR process. Tony 11:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Two problems with your recommendations: WP:MOSDATE asks us to keep the date as [[December 25]], [[1974]] so it can be rendered differently if the user specifies differently in his or her preferences. I can't think of a way in which that order can be preserved, and the date shortened. Also, the reference you request is at included in the article (185 mph winds = Cat 5 cyclone), and since references should not be stated in the lede, I'm at a loss as to what to do about that. The other ones I'll try to address. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

What's a "lede"? Tony 13:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Lede is an alternative spelling for Lead.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - article does not meet current FA criteria.--Peta
• Staus Given that most of the remove comments occured before the re-write I'm wondering if there is any further commentary on this one. Marskell 15:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove Seriously underreferenced. Sandy 01:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Remove per above. --jwanders^Talk 13:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)