# Talk:Cyclone Lili (2019)

@ChocolateTrain: If you can't find more information on preparations, I would recommend merging it into the impact section. This  is done quite frequently for storms that only have a paragraph for preparations. NoahTalk 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Im just doing this now, so that way you have an idea of what to improve in order to eventually go for GA, A class, or FA.

B1:  Not done There is significant over-citing. You don't have to cite each sentence in a paragraph with the same source when there is only a single source. Same thing goes for citing sentences back to back with the same source (with other sources earlier in the paragraph and later). When constructing paragraphs, you should get more than one source in order to better show verifiability. Additionally, you need to add the National Center for Environmental Prediction as the site for the NOAA ref (NOAA is the publisher) and Naval Meteorology and Oceanography Command as the publisher for the JTWC refs.
I have now addressed this. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
B2:  Not done At this point, coverage simply isn't complete as damage assessments are still underway.
B3:  Not done Structure will likely need some tweaking unless more info can be found on impacts. I expect an expansion of the impacts as more information becomes available. Due to the preps issue, I am saying no on this until it is clear that the structure is sound.
I have merged the preparations and impacts sections. Regarding the comments on Criteria B2 and B3, I think it is unlikely that any more information will become available regarding damages from the cyclone. Perhaps @B dash could use his magic to find some more news articles or others sources which mention damage and impacts? ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
B4:  Done Nothing wrong with the grammar and style.
B5:  Done Has an infobox, a track map, and an image. The number of supporting images is appropriate for an article of this size.
B6:  Done Met is technical at times, but nothing I feel would cause a serious issue in understanding what's happening. NoahTalk 03:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Hurricane Noah to say that I have addressed the comments. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Lili (2019)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 00:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

"This article is about the Australian region tropical cyclone in 2019. For other storms of the same name, see Hurricane Lili (disambiguation)." any reason that is there? Per WP:NAMB, it is unnecessary as the title explicitly states the storm occurred in 2019. Add a link to the dab in the see also though. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I think it is more useful to a reader for this to be at the top. They may not actually know which year the Lili they were looking for occurred in. It's much easier to use when it's at the top than when it's hidden away in the See Also section. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
The MOS, which WP:NAMB is a part of, differs, and I'd argue your argument is faulty because of the year in the title. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: My point was the reader not knowing the date of the cyclone they were looking for, not the date of the article they were reading. But regardless, I will remove it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Why are there citations for information already covered later on in the lead? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know you weren't meant to do this. I have fixed it. Note that I kept two citations for information that is only contained in the lead. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"The Joint Typhoon Warning Center estimated one-minute mean winds at this time to be at 85 km/h (50 mph), equivalent to a tropical storm on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale.[6]" TS isn't part of the SSHWS. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"Lili made landfall in northern East Timor the following day as a weak tropical low, and dissipated shortly afterwards." link to landfall
Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
" As this pulse had tracked across the Indian Ocean during the preceding fortnight, it had contributed to the favourable conditions which facilitated the intensification of Extremely Severe Cyclonic Storm Fani in the Bay of Bengal. Similarly, the presence of the pulse generated favourable conditions for tropical cyclogenesis in the seas to the north of the Australian continent.[12]" can you cut back on this bit regarding the MJO pulse? This article is about the storm, not the MJO. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved the mention of ESCS Fani to the 'See also' section. This simplified the MJO component of the Meteorological history. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"with sea surface temperatures of 29–30 degrees Celsius (84–86 degrees Fahrenheit)" why is "degrees Celsius/Fahrenheit" spelled out? Just do 29–30 °C (84–86 °F). YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"had begun to wrap into the consolidating low-level circulation centre. " into? you mean around? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll change this. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"Following suit three hours later, the JTWC assessed the system as the equivalent of a tropical storm on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale.[6]" see above. You probably can get away with just saying "equivalent of a tropical storm" as the term isn't formally part of the SSHWS. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Changed this at the same time as the fix for Feedback #3. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"While gradually strengthening as a tropical low during 7 May, the BMKG warned that the system was likely to intensify further into a tropical cyclone. Residents in eastern Indonesia, especially those in the southern Maluku Islands around the Banda Sea, were urged to prepare for the possibility of severe rainfall. It was noted that flash flooding and landslides would be possible if heavy rainfall were to occur. The potential for strong winds to develop in East Timor, the Indonesian provinces of East Nusa Tenggara and Maluku, and parts of Sulawesi, was also mentioned. Caution was advised for people planning to travel by water, with strong tides and waves expected in the Banda, Timor and Arafura Seas.[1]" this probably isn't worth including actually given it's just generic hurricane prep and speculation of what could happen, without any concrete specifics statistics. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I guess the paragraph also shows that they did not have much warning at all (like 1 day pretty much), and it details the regions which were asked to prepare. If I were to remove it, would it be OK that there would be no preparations information at all? I have left it in just for the moment to wait for your opinion. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: I am guessing that is a yes to it being fine that there will be no preparations section. I will remove it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"with impacts peaking at around 9:00 p.m. local time on 8 May." can you be consistent and use UTC time all the time? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Done ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
"Many roads, bridges and other pieces of infrastructure were damaged, cut off or threatened by flood waters, especially in the eastern half of the country. " this is really wordy. Suggest simplifying this down to "Many roads, bridges and other pieces of infrastructure were damaged due to flooding, especially in the eastern half of the country." YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I split it into two sentences to make it less wordy, while still retaining all the information. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's pretty good overall even if somewhat wordy. Fix the above and I'll take another look. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Just pinging you to make sure you don't miss the responses to the feedback. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yellow Evan: Thanks for replying, and sorry about the wait. I didn't realise you had addressed my questions yet. I'm not sure how I missed the page in my watch list. Hopefully this will qualify for GA now. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)