Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Nanmadol (2017)/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: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CycloneIsaac: Sure. Just notify me when ready. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Typhoon2013:.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 1: Pretty much done. Only need to add mentions of landfall. I have no idea who add the July 11 statement there, but if there is a possible source, as shown in its track, I will add it in. I just need to confirm that.
Criteria 2: Current. Removed Criteria 3, as to what I say is "if no source, then no mention". Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, article is (mostly) done now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my edits yesterday, I did some copyediting for grammar, and added non-breaking spaces and convert templates. Hopefully that settles some of the issues for Criteria 1. ~ KN2731 {tc} 07:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since not all issues have not been solved with these seven days, this nomination has failed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
  2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  9. [4]
  10. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  11. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
  2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) See below Fail Fail
    (b) (MoS) See below Fail Fail
  3. Verifiable with no original research:
  4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) See below I am out of my comfort zone WTF!?
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) See below Fail Fail
    (c) (original research) See below Fail Fail
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) 20.6% for one site, better paraphrasing needed Fail Fail
  5. Broad in its coverage:
  6. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) See below Fail Fail
    (b) (focused) See below Fail Fail
  7. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  8. Notes Result
    The reviewer has no notes here. Pass Pass
  9. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  10. Notes Result
    Most have not changed since the day of the storm, which is good and bad. Pass Pass
  11. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  12. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) No non-free images Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Good captions Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
On hold On hold On hold for one week.

Discussion

[edit]
Criteria 1
[edit]
  • "After gathering organization," Should be gaining.
  • "the system rapidly developed and intensified into a severe tropical storm and reached its peak intensity." What is the peak intensity?
  • Link Extratropical cyclone.
  • "during July 5." should be "on July 5."
  • "while five people are still unaccounted for." Change to "with five people unaccounted for."
  • "It is used from Nan Madol" From or named after?
  • "sometimes called as the "Venice of the Pacific"." The source said it is, not just sometimes.
  • "Later that day," What is six hours after "Later that day?"
  • "Soon after, the JTWC gave the system the internal designation of 05W, though they still classified it as a tropical depression." This sentence implies that they gave the designation as 5W but declared it as a depression earlier.
  • Did PAGASA upgrade Emong to a tropical storm before severe tropical storm?
  • "while Nanmadol was exiting the Philippine Area of Responsibility." Change to "when Nanmadol exited the Philippine Area of Responsibility."
  • There are more then one landfalls depicted on the track map. Those aren't mentioned.
  • "during July 8" On.
  • "During the next few days, the storm's remnants accelerated eastward towards Alaska, before dissipating off the coast of Alaska on July 11." Not referenced.
  • "The local government in Shimane, meanwhile, also urged residents to evacuate and issued a warning to 20,000 residents spanning some 9,200 households," is not "which promoted local officials to evacuate about 20,000 residents".
  • "During July 3" / "In July 10" You know what to do.
  • "began a bus" bus service?
  • "Trees with trunks of 50–60 cm (19.7–23.6 in) were washed away, which blocked the water stream further and thus exacerbated floods." Change to "blocking the water stream further and exacerbated floods."
  • "Therefore, on July 11, Forestry minister Yuji Yamamoto pledged to set up a task force to take a large driftwood, while an official at the University of Hyogo warned other municipalities of potential damage caused by fallen trees." Split these into two sentences.
  • Nagasaki should be linked the first time used.
  • "in Shikoku town of Muroto" Insert "the" between "in Shikoku".
  • "the iconic Shinkansen," That's an opinion.
  • "1,724 people. evacuated." Fragment.
  • "routes were already reopened over in some communities in the Fukuoka Prefecture." Routes of what?
Criteria 2
[edit]

Doing ref by ref.

  • Ref 1: Agency missing, location missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 2: Bare url, everything missing.
  • Ref 3: Inconsistent dates.
  • Ref 4: Bare url, everything missing.
  • Ref 5: ^
  • Ref 6: Date missing/inconsistent.
  • Ref 7: Date inconsistent.
  • Ref 8: Wrong title, wrong publisher, archive date missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 9: Agency missing, location missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 10: Archive date/publisher missing.
  • Ref 11: ^
  • Ref 12: ^
  • Ref 13: ^
  • Ref 14: ^
  • Ref 15: ^
  • Ref 16: Agency missing, location missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 17: Archive date/publisher missing.
  • Ref 18: ^
  • Ref 19: ^
  • Ref 20: ^
  • Ref 21: Bare url, everything missing.
  • Ref 22: Archive date/publisher missing.
  • Ref 23: ^
  • Ref 24: ^
  • Ref 25: ^
  • Ref 26: ^
  • Ref 27: Publisher missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 28: Location missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 29: Blog unreliable, use Stars and Stripes articles only.
  • Ref 30: Access date missing, subscription tag missing.
  • Ref 31: Location missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 32: Access date missing, subscription tag missing.
  • Ref 33: "Typhoon Nanmadol", inconsistent dates.
  • Ref 34: Author missing.
  • Ref 35: Dead link.
  • Ref 36: ^
  • Ref 37: ^
  • Ref 38: Wrong author, publisher missing, date missing.
  • Ref 39: Access date missing.
  • Ref 40: Article expired.
  • Ref 41: Editorials are not reliable.
  • Ref 42: Location missing, publisher missing, access date missing.
  • Ref 43: ^
  • Ref 44: ^
  • Ref 45: Bare url, everything missing.
  • Ref 46: Dead link.
  • Ref 47: Subscription tag missing.
Criteria 3
[edit]
  • There is Alaskan impact according to the infobox. Where is it?

Additional notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.