Talk:Typhoon Ellen (1983)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moswento (talk · contribs) 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll have a look at this one. Review will magically appear below soon. Take care, Moswento ^talky 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overalls

Overall, this is a magnificent article. It covers all the main aspects of the typhoon's existence, including its history, responses, damages etc. The sourcing is excellent, and I don't have any problems there. The prose is generally very clear, accessible to a layman but detailed enough to satisfy the enthusiast. I just have a few minor queries on the text, and then we're good to promote this to GA. Thanks for making my review so enjoyable to do! Keep up the very good work! Moswento ^talky 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're more than welcome. A few follow-up comments below. Because, you know, I don't want to make it too easy for you... Moswento ^talky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am pleased to announce that this is now a Good Article. Congratulations! Moswento ^talky 09:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

~~I think the opening sentence needs to mention the year, otherwise the "since 1979" doesn't mean much, and the dates in the next sentence mean even less!~~
- Generally, the wikiproject does not do that and I feel it would be redundant since the year is in the title. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah the title! As a reviewer, I didn't think about the title! A more competent reader would see the year there, you're right. FWIW, other typhoon articles I've seen either link to the season article in the first sentence, or mention the year with the first instance of the date of appearance, but I won't pursue this for GA. Moswento ^talky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh, understandable. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~"crossing in the dateline" - "crossing the dateline"?~~
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"339 were hurt, 120 of which were serious." - the "of which" doesn't quite work here. Perhaps "and there were a further 339 casualties, 120 of which were serious"?
- The "of which" suggestion still applies in your's as well :P Also, "causalities" are generally considered deaths. But I did find I way to revise it. Is it better now? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe it's a case of WP:ENGVAR, but "339 were hurt, including 120 serious" doesn't work to my ears, because serious is an adjective that cannot stand alone. Either you would need "339 were hurt, including 120 seriously" or "339 were hurt, including 120 serious injuries".

Moswento ^talky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Latter would be redundancy IMO, but former works. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"20 people died" - infobox says 23 confirmed?
- Fixed. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see the fix later in the article, but not here? Maybe it's in the title? Moswento ^talky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - XD, yea we're retitling this Typhoon Ellen (1983) which killed 23 people not 20. Jk. Anyway, fixed for real :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

~~"due to strong wind shear due to " - not essential for GA, but I'd remove the duplicated "due to", perhaps replace with "caused by"~~
- Good call, fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~"held the storms intensity " - "the storm's intensity"?~~
- Changed, assuming you wanted me to leave the "held" in the article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration" - acronym needs to be mentioned here for clarity~~
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

~~"In Hong Kong, 50,000 people lost power..." - these first four staccato sentences are a bit awkward. Could they be merged into two sentences?~~
- Combined a couple. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"including two men and a girl which died after getting crushed by a falling cabinet." - This suggests all three were crushed by a cabinet, whereas the sources suggest it was just the girl. I don't see that the men need to be mentioned at all, unless you're discussing the cause of death.
- Removed. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "a girl which died" - would this be better as "a girl who died"? Moswento ^talky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Altered. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Two sisters were killed while a fireman died while trying to rescue someone." - the repetition of "while" makes this unclear. I would also add that the sisters were killed in a landslide for clarity.~~
- Added, and change the second "while". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, 339 people were injured, including 120 serious." - This has a similar problem to the corresponding sentence in the lead
- Really don't think it is an issue here. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my comment above Moswento ^talky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should be okay now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~" 20 people were killed" - see comment in lead about infobox~~
- Clarified that this was in present day China. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]