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