Talk:1937 Pacific typhoon season

1937 Pacific typhoon season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 18, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Passed. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1937 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing this article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my review:

In the second storm, you should add "located in Baguio" instead of "in Baguio".

Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sources provided by newspaperarchive.com, you need to state that they need a subscription.

Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to add rainfall totals from Source 7 (first iteration)

Could you clarify? I don't see any rainfall totals from Source 7, just a bunch of pressure readings. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More information about the storm in August can be found from Source 7 (second iteration)

I clarified the date of formation, but I wondered what else you thought should be included that isn't currently in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "No longer identifiable" you mean "dissipated"?

Presumably dissipated, but the source says "After August 15 no trace of the storm could be found over the western part of the Yellow Sea." Now, it could have become extratropical and moved northeastward and the MWR didn't know. The MWR didn't say it dissipated, so I chose not to say that either, not wanting original research. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the 8th TC, you should add the effects to the Philippines.

The one from August 11th to 17th? The storm doesn't appear to have caused any affects there, or moved anywhere near there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the 10th TC, you should add that the TC was founded in Oshima and went towards the Eastern Sea for a few days/

The problem is that with such an old source, it's not immediately clear which "Oshima" the MWR means. There could be Izu Ōshima, or Oshima (Hokkaido), or Ōshima (Ehime), or Nii Ōshima, or, most likely, Amami Ōshima. However, there's not much evidence suggesting which one was which. I changed the wording a bit, lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence in "Hong kong typhoon" needs copyediting, instead of "the highest recorded gust at the time at the Hong Kong Observatory", It should be "the highest recorded gust at the time was recorded at the Hong Kong Observatory".

I tweaked this a little bit per the GA review of the HK typhoon, and removed "highest recorded" since that might not be true, and sticking with the wording and nuance of the sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like there are some words missing in "A high water mark at Tai Po was estimated at 6.2 metres (20.5 ft)."

Adding that the high waters washed away a village. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are more information in Source 14 (first iteration).

I'm trying not to include too much information from the HK article, so I'm keeping the section on the short side, if that's alright. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that the 16th TC turned into a typhoon?

MWR identified it as a typhoon in its section title. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 20th TC needs to be classified as a typhoon stated by a source.

Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whats "wasurldestimated"?

LOL wtf I have no idea how I did that, fixed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "typhon" instead of "typhoon".

That typo makes more sense lol, fixed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these problems, the article is good! Putting this on hold. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:12, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Hello? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got it! Let me know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink Everything looks good enough, passing. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.