This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Cyclone Fay is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
Australia and
Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
"Cyclone Fay was a tropical cyclone which struck Western Australia during the 2003-04 Australian region cyclone season." boring. Any better opener?
YEPacificHurricane
"Fay was the only Category 5 cyclone during the season. It had a minimum pressure of 910 mbar (hPa; 26.87 inHg) and maximum wind gusts of 132 mph (213 km/h).[1] " why are you using gusts instead of sustained winds?
YEPacificHurricane
"system was designated Tropical Cyclone 18S by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center, with winds of 25 knots (29 mph; 46 km/h)" why are you breaking WPTC rules and using knots?
YEPacificHurricane
"Fay began to turn southward on 17 March;" delink compass road directions.
YEPacificHurricane
"By March 19 Fay's track had turned to the west-southwest," see above.
YEPacificHurricane
"and on 21 March, Fay became a Category 5 storm,[6]" on what scale?.
YEPacificHurricane
"strengthening as it moved into a shortwave trough" jagron please.
YEPacificHurricane
" intensifying its poleward outflow." explain/wikilink poleward outflow.
YEPacificHurricane
" intensifying its poleward outflow." sounds like a word is missing.
YEPacificHurricane
" A mid-latitude trough caused the steering ridge to weaken, causing Fay to turn to the south.[7]" again, jagron is needed in two places
"It then encountered moister air as it moved southward, leading it to reintensify from 25-27 March, becoming a Category 4 storm as it made landfall on the Pilbara coast between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on 27 March, with estimated wind gusts of 146 mph (235 km/h). " a puch of things, 1 UTC time per WPTC standards. 2) reintensify to re-intensify. 3. wind speeds not gusts per WPTC standard.
YEPacificHurricane21:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Due to it's lack of size, combine it with the impact section if you like.
YEPacificHurricane
"Cyclone warnings were issued for areas threatened by the storm, and communities in the path of the storm were warned of expected high rainfall, as amounts greater than 20 centimetres (7.9 in) were expected.[10]" two things, Firs tof all, abbrvate centimeter Second of all, wikilink to
tropical cyclone watches and warnings during the first two words of the sentence.
YEPacificHurricane
Further fixed. The rainfall amount for one of the sites was off by a factor of 10. Here's a question...the rainfall amounts in that report were significantly higher than the TRMM rainfall estimates. Should we maintain the graphic when the discrepancy is this large? Keep in mind that all rain gages actually under report rainfall, not over report, especially during high winds.
Thegreatdr (
talk)
22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Article got better as I went along, will leave on hold for at least a week or two.
YEPacificHurricane
I'm currently finishing up a research project on a storm case study that I'll be turning in the week after Thanksgiving, so if you're willing to give me teh two weeks of it on hold, I'll get to it hopefully either late this week or early next week.
Inks.LWC (
talk)
06:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I went through and cleaned up the date formatting for the dates you added to make them consistent.
YE, if there's anything else you suggest changing, I'm back from working on my research and can address the issues.
Inks.LWC (
talk)
03:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, I'm not sure I can do much more to expand that. The sources I put in are all that I can find. If anybody else wants to add to it, go ahead. But why wasn't expansion listed in the original things to fix?
Inks.LWC (
talk)
04:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)reply
There are 24 advisories + a TCFA from
the JTWC, that you could use to expand this article like i told you back
in October. Also if you massaged the BoM report a bit you will be able to expand this article further. I recommend that this article is failed for now and renominated when its better.
Jason Rees (
talk)
02:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
Inks.LWC, if I were you, what I would do is talk more about Fay's life as a tropical disturbance before it was actually a cyclone. Additionally, once it was a cyclone, I would talk more about favorable or unfavorable conditions it encountered and its appearance (convection, banding, etc). Overall, its a nice article, but probably not quite up to Good Article standards. More impact would be nice as well. –
TropicalAnalystwx13 (
talk)
02:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I did go through and add from the advisories from the JTWC, wherever information wasn't already stated in the article. I guess I can go through again and see if I can squeeze out a little more, but there isn't much more to add.
Inks.LWC (
talk)
03:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll get to it when I have time and reapply for GA status, but it would've been nice if you would've included that in your original review comments so that I could've addressed it earlier when I had more time.
Inks.LWC (
talk)
07:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
In the spring of 2005, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology retired the name Fay from use, and it will never be used again as a cyclone name. can you provide its replacement?
I have just modified 2 external links on
Cyclone Fay. 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:
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.