Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Althea/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2017 [1].

Cyclone Althea

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most destructive cyclones ever to strike the state of Queensland in the modern era. A lot of the meteorological background and damage statistics are relatively straightforward, but this disaster is arguably most notable for having kickstarted Australia's initiative toward cyclone-resistant building codes. Although Althea was overshadowed by the infamous Cyclone Tracy just a few years later, its legacy can still be seen in the way homes are built in Queensland and across the country. I firmly believe this is the most comprehensive account of the cyclone available anywhere, on the internet or otherwise, and for that reason I'm nominating it for featured article status. As always, my sincere thanks for any comments and suggested improvements. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Riley

I will start out with some quick comments, and then will provide more comments later (Note: If I stop reviewing at any time and if all of my comments were addressed or commented on, please disregard this or regard this as a weak support).

In the infobox, the dates use MDY, while the article uses DMY dates. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see any MDY in the infobox. Where should I be looking? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see them on the infobox and it comes down to you using the Start and End date templates, which i assume automatically places the date format in the users preffered format which i personally kind of like.Jason Rees (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped to the {{start date}} templates so it could display the dates in the proper DMY format for consistency. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the term "Category 4 severe tropical cyclone" could be linked. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "Althea likely continued to organise until landfall, which occurred at 23:00 UTC on 23 December – 9 a.m. local time on Christmas Eve – near Rollingstone, about 50 km (30 mi) north of Townsville," what is the local time? And, why does this need to be mentioned, it was not mentioned anywhere else (the local time). RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone added. I usually like to mention local time for landfall since it's sort of a benchmark in the storm's history. In this case most sources usually emphasize that the worst of the storm struck on Christmas Eve, so I wanted to preserve that. Can remove if you think it's unnecessary. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does both "city" and "offshore" in the phrase "city and offshore", in the sentence "The landfall point placed the city and offshore Magnetic Island in the cyclone's powerful left-front quadrant," refer both to Magnetic Island? If so specify. If not, then what city are you referring to? RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, good catch. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try and specify the speed of the gale-force winds in the sentence "Because of the tight pressure gradient between Althea and the high pressure area to the south, gale-force winds extended well to the south of the cyclone's centre." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As specific windspeeds are mentioned later on in "Impact", do you still think it's needed here? That line is mostly meant to convey that the winds were strong over an unusually large area... I'll try to clarify. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "The strongest winds were likely situated under the contracting outer ring, which shrank from 55 to 39 km (34 to 24 mi) between 21:00 and 23:00 to become the dominant eyewall," the time system (like UTC) needs to be specified. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Specified. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the same sentence, "The strongest winds were likely situated under the contracting outer ring, which shrank from 55 to 39 km (34 to 24 mi) between 21:00 and 23:00 to become the dominant eyewall," it would be good to define "outer ring" and "eyewall" to all of us non-hurricane/cyclone fanatics. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to believe there's anyone who isn't a tropical cyclone fanatic. (clarified a bit.) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence "At 00:00 UTC on 28 December, the cyclone reached a tertiary peak with 10-minute winds of 110 km/h (70 mph), but as it turned more toward the south, increasingly cooler sea surface temperatures took their toll on the cyclone," it might be better to say "a third peak" instead of "a tertiary peak", as commonly used words are better if they reach the same level of precision. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to give the time in the format you use for UTC (without "a.m.") in the sentence "At 9 a.m. AEST on Christmas Eve, Althea struck the coast of Queensland near Rollingstone, about 50 km (30 mi) north of Townsville." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe link "surf" in the sentence "A significant 3.66 m (12.0 ft) storm surge battered the mainland, while rough surf destroyed roads and seawalls." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You say "ten" (spelled out) in the sentence "Ten people in Townsville were reported missing during the cyclone: nine on three boats that were unaccounted for, and one whose car was found in a swollen creek," yet you do not spell out 10 elsewhere. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per MOS:NUMERAL, the number "8" needs to be spelled out in the sentence "In the village of Horseshoe Bay, one woman died in a building collapse, and reportedly only 8 out of 150 houses in the community survived the cyclone." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually correct as it is per WP:NUMNOTES, which says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures". I very well could be wrong though... that's one part of the MoS I've never been able to fully grasp. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, keep as is then. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try for simpler language, like not "denuding", "The winds were strong enough to bend large steel utility poles and lift houses off their foundations, while entirely denuding trees of their leaves." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You give specific percentages for totally demolished and critical but repairable damage, but you say "about" for the minor damages. This is in the sentence "One post-storm survey of 6,000 houses in Townsville found around 0.7% totally demolished, 1.7% with critical but repairable damage, and about 13% with minor damage." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "Several months after the storm, the Townsville City Council reported that 200 houses had been leveled, 600 more rendered uninhabitable, and as many as 4,000 damaged," the quantities are too unlikely to not be an "about" value. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've added "about" for the first figure... is that sufficient or do you think it should be repeated for the others? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should be good. It might also be nice, to give the reader a sense of scale, to mention how about one in a hundred houses were destroyed, according to FN 19. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, added. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link "War Service Homes Commission" and possibly say "about" or something to that effect in the sentence "Among the structures damaged or destroyed were 200 Queensland Housing Commission homes and 500 of the 700 War Service Homes Commission dwellings in Townsville." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What now is "horizontal beach erosion"; "Between Pallarenda and Rowes Bay, beaches receded by as much as 15.8 m (52 ft), with up to 12 m (39 ft) of horizontal beach erosion reported at Balgal Beach near the cyclone's landfall point." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "Hydrodynamic model simulations predict that for a cyclone like Althea, the Great Barrier Reef would have very little dampening effect on the storm surge," does not have a very good transition, and it doesn't really make sense. Maybe say something like "Although the Great Barrier Reef has a general dampening effect on storm surges, this was not the case for those caused by Althea. Hydrodynamic model simulations predicted that for cyclones as powerful as Althea, the Great Barrier Reef would have a minimal dampening effect on the storm surge." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed that bit entirely. Too technical for our purposes. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add an "about" before "$1 million" in the sentence "Trees and power lines in the community were mangled, nearly every building was unroofed, and damage amounted to $1 million." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Couple responses posted above, otherwise I've carried out all of your helpful suggestions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In 12 hours after what? "Inland rainfall rates reached 250 mm (9.8 in) in 12 hours, resulting in widespread flash flooding over western and southern Queensland." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe mention the severity of the tornados/tornadoes in the sentence "Two tornadoes embedded within the cyclone's outer bands touched down in Bowen, causing damage to buildings and vegetation." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find anything about the tornadoes beyond what's already there. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comma after New South Wales in the sentence "Damaging thunderstorms in the suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales, on 25 December were broadly attributed to the weather pattern associated with Althea," either needs to be removed or balanced out with another comma, say, one after December. Otherwise it reads weirdly. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specify the country of the Prime Minister in the sentence "Prime Minister William McMahon soon traveled to Townsville to assess the damage and authorise the distribution of emergency grants for affected residents." I mean, foreign aid is a thing. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe say "Government of Australia" instead of "Commonwealth Government" in the sentence "The Commonwealth Government reimbursed Queensland for an estimated $5.5–6 million spent by the state on recovery," as I am sure that there is more than one commonwealth. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence "Only isolated instances of looting were reported after the disaster," the word "only" sounds a bit odd. Maybe drop it. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The comma after Northern Territory in the sentence "The trend of more rigorous construction specifications in the country was bolstered when Cyclone Tracy devastated Darwin, Northern Territory, three years later," sounds a bit odd. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of the sentence "The severe cyclones prompted Queensland to develop its first state-wide building regulations in 1975; the new Queensland Home Building Code was fully adopted by the mid-1980s," sounds a bit odd. Maybe drop the "by" and replace it with "in"? RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A larger number compared to what? "Under the new regulations, roofs had to be securely anchored using larger numbers of bolts and reinforced fastenings." RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for the detailed review; your suggestions have certainly helped to improve the article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I also left a reply to one of your replies, and that seems to be all that needs doing. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Really good article, and very interesting. Amazing job! RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review and subsequent support, both much appreciated. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Use one or the other of either spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes. Don't use both.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, dashes fixed. My preference for one or the other seems to be quite mood-dependent. Your edits look great, as always; many thanks for the prose review and assistance. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Finetooth

This article reads really well throughout except for a bit of choppiness in the final section. I've suggested two sentence mergers that I think would help, and I have just five other minor suggestions.

Meteorological history

"the system reached tropical cyclone status around 06:00 UTC on 20 December" – Link UTC on first use?
"by the canopy of cirrus clouds" – "a" rather than "the" since the cirrus clouds have not been mentioned earlier in the article?
"increasingly cooler sea surface temperatures took their toll on the cyclone" – "Weakened" instead of "took their toll on"?

Aftermath

"At the end of December, it was announced that the state and federal governments..." – Rather than the passive "it was announced that", it would be better to say who did the announcing if you can. If you don't know, maybe "officials announced that".
"Emergency vehicles, specialised personnel, electric generators, refrigerators, food rations, and other critical supplies were ferried to the island. Medical officers rushed to limit the spread of gastroenteritis on Magnetic Island after several cases were reported following the cyclone." – Here's a pair that you might combine as "Emergency vehicles, specialised personnel, electric generators, refrigerators, food rations, and other critical supplies were ferried to the island, and medical officers rushed there to limit the spread of gastroenteritis after several cases were reported."
"Isolated instances of looting were reported after the disaster. Multiple local merchants were investigated for alleged price gouging." – Merge these two with a ", and"? I don't think either this combo or the first one would create a run-on sentence, but if you disagree, you might find another way to vary the sentence structures a bit more in this section.

~~Images~~ Alt text

The four images in the main text need alt text.

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and very helpful copyediting, Finetooth. I've acted on your above points and tried to smooth out the "aftermath" section a bit to improve flow and reduce choppiness. I'm sure my alt text leaves much to be desired, but hopefully it's close to where it needs to be. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Your changes look fine, and the article is well-written, well-illustrated, and interesting. Finetooth (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

I note that a large part of this article is sourced to 1972 newspaper accounts. These are basically primary sources - it would be better to see secondary sources used ... are there any?

The article does employ some recent sources, and there are plenty of "look back"-type pieces about the storm that I could WP:REFBOMB into the article, but it's impossible to write a comprehensive account of most historical natural disasters without relying fairly heavily on contemporary damage reports. I've never viewed that as a problem, as this isn't the sort of information that requires decades of analysis to validate; if a certain number of houses were destroyed in 1971, then they'll always continue to have been destroyed in 1971. WP:RS considers mainstream newspapers to be reliable sources, and my understanding of WP:PSTS has always been that independent primary sources are acceptable for use in supporting strictly factual claims without further critical commentary. Hopefully this doesn't prove to be a significant flaw in the article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes http://monumentaustralia.org.au a high quality reliable source?

Normally it isn't, but here it's only being used to prove that a particular monument exists (evidenced through the photos here). As this is a straightforward descriptive claim that could be verified by anyone who wishes to visit the location, I believe the standards for sourcing are relaxed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Moisejp

The article looks very good. I only noticed a couple of very minor points on my first read through—besides that everything seemed very good. Comments:

Impact section: "Total damage from Cyclone Althea amounted to just shy of A$120 million". "Just shy of" may be a little colloquial?
Costal Queensland: "Seawalls and coastal roadways were crushed by the pounding surf in places like the Strand and Cape Pallarenda." It may be a matter of preference, but may I suggest "such as" instead of "like"? It feels more precise and formal to me.

I'd like to read through one more time to see if I missed anything before giving my support. Thanks, Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reading through the article and commenting here. I agree with and have made the suggested changes. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now support. Below are two more minor suggestions that you can take or leave as you like:

"Total damage from Cyclone Althea amounted to just under A$120 million (1971), while three people were killed by the storm.[8] The normalised damage total for 2012, which accounts for growth and inflation, was estimated at $648 million.[9] Throughout the affected region, 257 people were treated for storm-related injuries, mostly inflicted by airborne debris." Would it make sense to put the casualties and injuries together, and the 1971 vs 2012 figures together?
"About 100 people rode out the cyclone in the dining room of a Picnic Bay hotel": Is "rode out" more colloquial than ideal? Something like "took safety for the duration of the cyclone" could be an alternative. Moisejp (talk) 03:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do the latest changes look? Thank you for the support. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They look great!Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I see that Finetooth mentions images above but can I just clarify if this constitutes a full image review? If not, I think we still need one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a full review. I'll use alt text instead of images in the future to avoid creating confusion. Finetooth (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

NASA and US government images - OK.
Sufficient source and author info - OK.
Flickr image shows no signs of problems - OK.
"fair-use" image: a significant feature that needs visual illustration to understand - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.