Talk:Cyclone Ilona/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 18:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The second lead paragraph is pretty short (understandably), so maybe add that there were no deaths?
[1] - there might be some more information here. Page 3 talks about the storm's relation with the monsoon
"Officials indicated residents had roughly 12 hours to fully prepare." - something seems a bit funky to me here. Would you be opposed to adding a "that" before "had"?
"Striking Pilbara as a severe tropical cyclone, Ilona caused significant damage in the region." - this doesn't mesh with the first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Perhaps indicate that Pilbara is a sparsely-populated area, which accounted for the light damage but severe local effects?

All in all it's a good little article, and my comments are fairly minor. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Darwin report was a bit vague on it, but there was enough there to tie the origins of Ilona to the monsoon trough. Made the other suggested changes as well. Thanks for the review, Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]