Talk:Cyclone Fay

Cyclone Fay 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 14, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 21, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere 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
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 Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Cyclone Fay is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC) Seing that I've ever looked at the article much, I though I would review.[reply]

Lead

"Cyclone Fay was a tropical cyclone which struck Western Australia during the 2003-04 Australian region cyclone season." boring. Any better opener? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
When did Fay form? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
What direction did it move in? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
When did Fay intensify? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Fay was the only Category 5 cyclone during the season. It had a minimum pressure of 910 mbar (hPa; 26.87 inHg) and maximum wind gusts of 132 mph (213 km/h).[1] " why are you using gusts instead of sustained winds? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some over linking in the section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

"system was designated Tropical Cyclone 18S by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, with winds of 25 knots (29 mph; 46 km/h)" why are you breaking WPTC rules and using knots? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Fay began to turn southward on 17 March;" delink compass road directions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"By March 19 Fay's track had turned to the west-southwest," see above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"and on 21 March, Fay became a Category 5 storm,[6]" on what scale?. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"strengthening as it moved into a shortwave trough" jagron please. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" intensifying its poleward outflow." explain/wikilink poleward outflow. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" intensifying its poleward outflow." sounds like a word is missing. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" A mid-latitude trough caused the steering ridge to weaken, causing Fay to turn to the south.[7]" again, jagron is needed in two places
"It then encountered moister air as it moved southward, leading it to reintensify from 25-27 March, becoming a Category 4 storm as it made landfall on the Pilbara coast between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on 27 March, with estimated wind gusts of 146 mph (235 km/h). " a puch of things, 1 UTC time per WPTC standards. 2) reintensify to re-intensify. 3. wind speeds not gusts per WPTC standard. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added the UTC time of landfall. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

Due to it's lack of size, combine it with the impact section if you like. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"Cyclone warnings were issued for areas threatened by the storm, and communities in the path of the storm were warned of expected high rainfall, as amounts greater than 20 centimetres (7.9 in) were expected.[10]" two things, Firs tof all, abbrvate centimeter Second of all, wikilink to tropical cyclone watches and warnings during the first two words of the sentence. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed so that centimeters is now abbreviated. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

Combine the first three paragraphs. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Any rainfall records? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Any damage total? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all: No damage/rainfall records found. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further fixed. The rainfall amount for one of the sites was off by a factor of 10. Here's a question...the rainfall amounts in that report were significantly higher than the TRMM rainfall estimates. Should we maintain the graphic when the discrepancy is this large? Keep in mind that all rain gages actually under report rainfall, not over report, especially during high winds. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

Combine with impact. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Why was it retired. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- Fixed all -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Article got better as I went along, will leave on hold for at least a week or two. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I'm currently finishing up a research project on a storm case study that I'll be turning in the week after Thanksgiving, so if you're willing to give me teh two weeks of it on hold, I'll get to it hopefully either late this week or early next week. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ill give you two to three weeks, hows that? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this. I do plan on getting to it by Monday/Tuesday. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and fixed all of YE's concerns. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and cleaned up the date formatting for the dates you added to make them consistent. YE, if there's anything else you suggest changing, I'm back from working on my research and can address the issues. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything new here? What's holding it back from passing? – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking in lead, more MH, and combine the last two sentences of the impact. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the overlinking and impact, but not sure what you mean by "more mh". Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Meteorological history section needs to be expanded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Out of my expertise, so hopefully the two above can do that swiftly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure I can do much more to expand that. The sources I put in are all that I can find. If anybody else wants to add to it, go ahead. But why wasn't expansion listed in the original things to fix? Inks.LWC (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 24 advisories + a TCFA from the JTWC, that you could use to expand this article like i told you back in October. Also if you massaged the BoM report a bit you will be able to expand this article further. I recommend that this article is failed for now and renominated when its better.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inks.LWC, if I were you, what I would do is talk more about Fay's life as a tropical disturbance before it was actually a cyclone. Additionally, once it was a cyclone, I would talk more about favorable or unfavorable conditions it encountered and its appearance (convection, banding, etc). Overall, its a nice article, but probably not quite up to Good Article standards. More impact would be nice as well. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did go through and add from the advisories from the JTWC, wherever information wasn't already stated in the article. I guess I can go through again and see if I can squeeze out a little more, but there isn't much more to add. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try and get as much as you can. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review failed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it when I have time and reapply for GA status, but it would've been nice if you would've included that in your original review comments so that I could've addressed it earlier when I had more time. Inks.LWC (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Fay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AJona1992 (talk · contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

In the spring of 2005, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology retired the name Fay from use, and it will never be used again as a cyclone name. can you provide its replacement?

I haven't been able to find the replacement name for Fay. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Wouldn't it be Freddy? [1]. Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think Freddy would be the replacement name as the lists for the region were in 3 lists until 2008.Jason Rees (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the report and the map of the TCWC area of responsiblity, it would have been named by the Darwin TCWC which would mean that Ferdinand replaced Fay. Bidgee (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

FN#2 link Joint Typhoon Warning Center
FN#4 link The Sydney Morning Herald
FN#5 link The Age
FN#6 link ABC News

Please fix these issues and it passes GA. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I know what you mean by "FN". Inks.LWC (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes (references) Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 23:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of the reference links are working for me. I'm not sure what the problem is. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read, I did not say the references are not working, please link the following in the references that's all. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 19:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I didn't realize that's what you were saying, but they're linked now. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright I'm passing the article great job btw. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 22:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclone Fay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]