Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:31, 25 February 2011 [1].

---

Timeline of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season

Timeline of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season/archive1

Nominator(s): — Iune(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article passes the FLC criteria. This article is written in the same format as the Timeline of the 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season and Timeline of the 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season; both of which are featured. Note: This article has been submitted for Wikicup 2011. — Iune(talk) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Relisting (previous comments) for more comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• How is this not a CFORK of the 2004–05 Australian region cyclone season article? Nergaal (talk) 23:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

While the season article contains information about the storms, it does not include all of the intensity changes that a storm under goes which the Timeline covers. — Iune(talk) 01:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

What percentage would you say is not a content fork? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now
• Please change the external link in footnote #1 to an actual reference.
• "Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), who run" - I don't have anything against the BritEng singular style, but in the rest of the list you use plural, eg. "TCWC Perth reports"
• "This timeline includes information from post-storm reviews by the Bureau of Meteorology, TCWC Port Moresby, and the JTWC." - Why are TCWC and JTWC abbreviated, while the BOM is spelled out?
• "It documents tropical cyclone formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, and dissipations during the season." - Awkward mix between plural and singular.
• "category one tropical cyclone" - Please use "Category 1" format, which is standard in TC articles.
• "TCWC Perth reports that a tropical low has formed." - We don't need to know this, unless you plan on including every recognized disturbance. Just say "x agency reports a tropical low has intensified into TD y". Same thing applies for all similar instances.
  • Unless i am very much mistaken, we do need to know when a tropical low has formed as it is what they call a tropical depression.Jason Rees (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• "TCWC Perth reports that the tropical low (05S) has dissipated." - I'm not sure you should call it 05S for a Perth listing.
  • There is no other option but to call it 05S IMO as according to Iune's email to the BoM, they did not use their U numbers at this time.Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Those are just some of the major issues I've noticed. Sorry, I just don't think this meets standards set by other timeline FLs (which I strongly support the inclusion of, BTW). Juliancolton (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.