Talk:Tropical Storm Zita/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The storm path map should probably indicate that the positions are based on JTWC intensity. It suggests it reached typhoon status, but officially (as per the article title) it didn't.
Likewise to the above, you should probably be careful when referring to exact wind speeds in the lede, since it refers to wind speeds of 85 mph. The lede should reflect the official JMA intensity. More importantly, perhaps, the article in general should reflect the JMA intensity more. Right now it seems like an afterthought.
For this to become a good article, it should really have some sort of update on the fatalities. I don't think Dartmouth is that ideal of a reference, since it's a US university dealing with casualties in China. You should find the source they used and report that in the article. I think that is a major comprehensiveness issue.
What were the exact origins of the storm? Monsoon trough? Something else?
You should mention exactly where Zita attained typhoon status (per JTWC). It's not very helpful saying "despite Zita's proximity" - it would be useful for something more like "despite being only 50 miles from the Chinese coastline", or something like that.
Any rainfall estimates?
"Roughly An estimated 55,170 km2 (21,300 mi2) of land was affected by the storm-induced floods" - something wrong there?
What are "coastal crops"?
It feels like the impact section is just missing a lot of stuff. The typhoon seems like it was decently damaging, but there's no details like homelessness, overall number of houses damaged/destroyed in China, power outages in China, or any sort of damage in Vietnam. There aren't that many sources, and the ones that are there just feel rather templated.

Sorry, but I'm going to fail the article. The writing is decent, but I'm concerned about GA criteria 3 and 4. There aren't any local sources, and the impact isn't comprehensive enough. Good luck fixing the article in the future. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]