Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Namu/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind Hurricanehink that this is my GAN as well even though i do not feel that the article was not ready for a GAN as not enough research to cover the major aspects has been done. This includes the damage total which keeps getting messed around with and the fact that one of the reports is duplicated several times and contains a better estimate of the death toll than many of the

While you did do the MH and nobody own's articles, as of this writing, I officially nominated this GAN, so this is my GAN. No, plenty of research had been done. It's slightly longer than the 2 SPAC FA's. While Namu is more important than both the 2 others FA, this is GAN not FAC, so the article does not have to be as comprehensive as a FAC. It is 29 kb, which in my opinion is plentifully given that SPAC storms as a whole are non-notable (it only affected 170,000 people after all). This is the second longest SPAC storm article that I know off (after Evan, which was much costlier and extremely recent). Wikipedia articles are not expected to include everything, it is suppose to just be summary. If you think this is short, how long do you expect it to be? And, if it is short, why don't you be bold and expand it if you consider it "your GAN". And no, the damage total is not being messed around, we don't include economical losses for articles in any basin. While I am somewhat open to using EMDAT damage total, it's 20 million, but even that seems a bit low; I think it is one of those instances where EMDAT damage total is a bit low. And the death total is fine IMO, I have seen plenty of sources that go with 150 deaths. We could arguably use EMDAT which goes with 101 deaths, but given the info on exactly how they died, more than 101 people died during the storm. It's not like people come back to life after all :P YE Pacific Hurricane 04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YE the best death toll i could come up using just what is located within the article was 62, even though you could use the details in reference 1 to expand out how many died and in what situation. I have my doubts about if 150 is right since this by the same authors as ref 1 but not used in the article, researched all of the deaths and came up with a death toll of about 111. I dont expect miracles with the length of the article and do not care about how many kb it is but i do expect to be able to justify the death toll and that takes a lot more research and yes i will help expand it more as long as i am treated with a little bit of respect and not like a piece of chewing gum on the sole of your foot.Jason Rees (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added details from reference 1 and tweaked the death toll. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(

All in all, pretty good. Just some small issues that can be fixed easily. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review as always Hink :D YE Pacific Hurricane
    • I strongly feel that there is still a lot out there that could be added to this article, for example These three journals contain a lot of information that need to be used to expand the article. I am trying to rewrite the article and am grateful to Hurricanehink for not failing this GAN yet but my time is limited at the minute so thus i feel it is time for this article to be failed.Jason Rees (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GA's don't have to include everything, it's is suppose to be a summary. Anyway, this GAN has turned a bit dramatic, and I'd rather worry about other articles than this right now. Therefore, I am withdrawing this GAN. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]