Talk:Tropical Storm Linfa (2003)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" during the months of May and June 2003" --> "in May and June 2003"
- Done – That's much more concise. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Rising floodwaters resulted in the temporary shutdown of government offices and numerous mudslides" - temporary shutdown of mudslides? I'd switch the order :P
- Done – It'd be great if we could just shutdown mudslides. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"All damage totals are in 2003 USD unless otherwise noted." - I think this should be changed to "2003 value of their respective currencies", since most of the currencies are PHP.
- Done – Sounds good to me. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The floods also displaced 8,367 people in 1,686 families" - 7 people per family sounds like a lot.
- Considering that the Philippines had about 5 per household it doesn't seem all too surprising. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to Linfa's slow movement off the western coast of Luzon followed by its eventual landfall allowed for copious amounts of rain to occur in areas of the Philippines, leading to widespread flooding" - this isn't written the best, grammatically. Add a comma after "Luzon" and "landfall", and cut "Due to" in the beginning.
- Done – Followed suggestions. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Floodwaters forced the displacement of over 600 families" - nominalization may seem like fancy writing, but it just makes the text longer. Try - "Floodwaters forced over 600 families to evacuate..." might be better
- Done – TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"damaged an additional 2,040 more" - "more" is redundant here
- Done – TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Japan Meteorological Agency projected the occurrence of heavy precipitation and strong winds in the island nation's southwestern regions." - you could cut "the occurrence of" and make it shorter/more concise by changing "projected" to "anticipated"'
- Done – TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Upon making landfall on Shikoku, Linfa became the first tropical cyclone to strike any of Japan since 1965, as well as the third earliest tropical cyclone to make landfall on any of Japan's four main islands since standardized records began in 1951." - not sure what you were going for here. Do you mean the first to strike Japan in May? That is a key missing word, heh
- Done – Yeah, I forgot that. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"damaging roads in seven locations and ¥197.45 million (US$1.65 million)" - missing word for the damage total.
- Done – TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to the threat of additional rockfalls and landslides, Ogachi and Ishinomaki were evacuated." - the entirety of both towns were evacuated?
- Done – Cleared that up with the usual 'ordered to evacuate' etc. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Several flights to and from the prefecture were also suspended for several days." - you already mentioned this in the first Japan paragraph
- Done – TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage caused by the flooding to sweet potato and tobacco crops alone in Kagoshima Prefecture reached ¥21 million (US$180,000)" - cut "caused by the flooding"
- Done – Alrighty. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why you linked those storms in the see also section with a little description?
- Done – Gave them a few descriptors. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All in all, the Japan impact section is a little poorly structure. How did you organize it how as you did? If you did it by island, could you clarify?
- Done – It was by island, and then by prefecture, so I cleared that up a bit. Last paragraph is exclusively wind damage, so that's there. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty good, just the above stood out to me. Lemme know if you have any questions! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]