# Talk:2010 Gascoyne River flood

Does this need "December" in the title? I am not aware of another Gascoyne River flood in 2010. Per WP:AT, article titles should be precise, but not over-precise. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Just did a quick check through media, there doesn't appear to be another one in 2010. If no one argues against, I'll move it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 Gascoyne River flood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"amounting to over 6,000 percent of the monthly mean in just four days" - that's sorta misleading. You should also indicate how much precipitation happened somewhere in the lede
Clarified and added. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you organize that sentence a little better? "Triggered by record-breaking rainfall, amounting to over 6,000 percent of the monthly mean, 313.6 mm (12.35 in) and 5 mm (0.20 in) respectively, in just four days, the floods caused widespread damage in the region. " --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Where did the river crest at over 51 feet?
Added (Fishy Pool) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The lede should have a USD conversion for the damage total. Also, it should be noted when that total is from. If it's as of January X, you should try finding a newer estimate.
No newer estimates as far as I've seen and AUD and USD were nearly the same at the time of the storm. Damage amounts would be 100 million and 100.4 million respectively, rather useless in my opinion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of Background, is there a better location than "northwest of Western Australia"? That would be like saying "northwest of California"... not very useful considering how big it is
I'm not sure of the exact location, the BOM doesn't specify it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"the floods is" - I know grammatically it is fine, but the wording could be improved to avoid that
Where is this? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"Climatologically, the region affected by the floods is a dry area" - as part of the sentence, it is correct, but I think the wording could be improved to avoid that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
"Prior to the event, much of the Gascoyne River catchment was suffering from a drought and many places abruptly shifted from drought conditions to record floods in less than 24 hours." - sort of two different ideas there
One leads into the other, it's to show how abruptly the floods came.
Minor quibble, but what was the 24 hour record set in 1923?
119.4 mm Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"Following the torrential downpours, the Gascoyne River began to rise on 17 December" - shouldn't that be "During the torrential downpours"? From what I read, I thought it was still raining on the 17th
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"One person nearly drowned after being swept away by swift currents in the city. He was rescued near an embankment by a police helicopter which was in the area" - those two sentences should be combined, and I think the "nearly drowned" part should be removed. How can someone nearly drown?
Running out of energy to swim, gasping for air before going underwater? :P (also fixed/combined them) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
"The most severe losses took place in rural parts of Carnarvon where residents who worked for years to build up a livelihood lost all their belongings" - that's a little dramatic. Of course, a lot of people work years to build up a livelihood.
De-dramatized it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
When did the floods subside?
Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Otherwise, it looks good. I'll be happy to pass it once these issues are addressed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review Hink, sorry I didn't get to it in a more timely fashion Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Alright, it's good enough that I'll pass it, although those other things should still be addressed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)