Talk:Cyclone Inigo

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Inigo. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827151915/http://ssu1.bom.gov.au/wa/cyf/reports/Inigo/Inigo.htm to http://ssu1.bom.gov.au/wa/cyf/reports/Inigo/Inigo.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.bom.gov.au/anon2/home/ncc/cyclone/cyclones_newformat.zip
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/www/TCP_vO/Reports/RA5_TCC10.pdf

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) 01:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

&nbsp:

GA Reassessment

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

Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessmment will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 

Instructions: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

 

Result: Delisted. Legitimate concerns, no opposition or improvements made; 129 editors viewed the GA Reassessment page, and matters raised in the reassessment were not addressed. These matters will remain valid until the next GA Review, whereupon they must be addressed first. --Whiteguru (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• In the Lede, do we really need a link to Indonesia or Western Australia? Both are common terms.
• in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. This is a repeat link, not needed. See MOS:REPEATLINK

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Reference 3 is blocked due security warning of trojan. Consider the archive link: https://web.archive.org/web/20190419035853/http://www.australiansevereweather.com.au/cyclones/2003/summ0304.htm

• The link at the foot of the Most Intense Australian Cyclones table goes to 404. The archive.org link will not give this cyclone. Consider this might be a permanent dead link?

• The previous link would have given you information on the Cyclone if you had gone to the correct season, however, I have updated the link to BoM newer TC BT Database.Jason Rees (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reference 7 is a permanent dead link.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• Reference 2 mentions At least 50 people were killed on Flores and Besar Islands. Should Besar Island also be mentioned in the Lede?
• Reference 2 suggests the low was first detected on 28 March. JTWC detects the Low on 29th.
• Coverage of the damage caused by this cyclone in the Indonesian islands is well presented.

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

• Neutral point of view is presented on this article.

1. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

• Page was created on 4 January 2008
• 115 edits to this page by 60 editors
• Last 90 days, 2390 page views averaging 26 per day
• There are 345 links to this page and 222 links from this page
• 12 reverted edits to this page.
• there has been minor vandalism and reverted edits by IP addresses; last set of reverts in 2010
• page is considered stable at this time.

1. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

• Inigo 2003-04-04 0255Z.jpg = is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA.
• Inigo 2003 track.png = released into the public domain by its author, Nilfanion
• Inigo 07 apr 2003 0610Z.jpg = is in the public domain in the United States because it was solely created by NASA

1. Overall:

• This is an older page, and some linkrot has occurred. Running the IA Bot on this page may be of benefit.
• Consideration of the issues raised above would be appreciated. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

 

 

---

Editor comments prior to reassessment

So what's wrong with the article? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said there was anything wrong. The original review cannot be found. The reviewer has been inactive since 2009. Reassessment is a fitting way to get a review on record. --Whiteguru (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking through the Princess Janay's contributions I'm not sure that they even reviewed the article in the first place. Looking over the article, I notice that parts of the meteorological history and impacts could do with expansion and tidying up. I also notice that the formation date needs a tweak to when the TL developed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)