# Talk:Cyclone Nancy

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Nancy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and have a few comments.

Comments
I have noticed that you now have (10-minute winds} etc., which I assume means something like the wind speed represents 10 minute samples, or alternatively, that the highest velocity lasted for 10 minutes. Perhaps you could explain the meaning in a footnote.
I've added a difference among warning centers subsection to the MH. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Already impacted by Cyclone Meena in early February, Cyclone Nancy caused significant damage in the Cook Islands." Since the subject of this sentence is Cyclone Nancy, the meaning seems to be that Cyclone Nancy was already impacted by Cyclone Meena in early February. Is this what you mean?
Corrected Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"Cyclone Nancy originated broad area of low pressure within a monsoonal trough ..." Cyclone Nancy created the broad area of low pressure? This is not quite clear.
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"and gave it the name Nancy while located about 485 km (300 mi) east-northeast" - while it was located? (to be clear)
Fixed
The JTWC - have you connected this with its full name previously?
Yes Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
"assessed Nancy to have been substantially weaker until 0000 UTC on February 14" - Would "assessed Nancy to be substantially weaker" work just as well?
Not sure since I worded it to show the sudden jump in wind speeds. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
These are small issues and I am sure you will have no problems fixing them. It is a fine article. Besides the storm dynamics, it is interesting to read how these storms affect far off lands such as the Cook Islands. 
—Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment
I still don't get what "(10-minute winds}" means!  
—Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I put a note thing, it's just the length of time that the winds are measured and averaged out by the RSMC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written  b (MoS): Follows applicable MoS guidelines 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced  b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable  c (OR): No OR 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspects  b (focused): Focuses on topic 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:Neutral 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass 

Congratulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Nancy. 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/20071031125359/http://www.adb.org/documents/rrps/coo/39118-COO-RRP.pdf to http://www.adb.org/documents/rrps/coo/39118-COO-RRP.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) 16:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)