Talk:Typhoon Goni (2015)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cloudchased (talk · contribs) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this one. Cloudchased (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't written anything in a long time nor reviewed anything, but the prose strikes me as a bit subpar compared to what I've seen you write in the past, so this might be a longer review than usual.

"Developing in tandem with Typhoon Atsani" – could use a link for that (even if it's just a subsection)

Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"first passed" the post – bad pun aside, I'm not sure why there's a "first" here if it only appears to have done so once, unless you're referring to the storm passing by [x] landmass first – and even in that case it seems to be rather clunky prose.

In that sentence, I was originally referring to the typhoon affecting much of East Asia, but I realize that it didn't come across well. I removed the "first". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"signal an intensifying" → "signalling..."

Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Goni would evolve into" → "Goni evolved into"

That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and moved through southwestern Japan, moving across Kyushu" – aren't these the same thing/redundant?

Not exactly. Japan is the country and the name of the archipelago, and Kyushu is the one specific island it crossed. I changed it to "and moved across the Japanese island of Kyushu." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of the first lede paragraph might be interpreted as meaning that all of those happened on the same day – and I don't think that's the case based on the track image.

Clarified timing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"heavy rainfall caused flooding and power outages" – wait, did the rain cause power outages there? That's a new one.

How is that a new one? The Guam section says "with floods temporarily shutting down the Tumon power sub-station". The rains caused the rains, which caused the power outages; therefore, the rains caused the floods and the power outages. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"leading to deadly landslides, flooded fields, and thousands of destroyed houses" → "resulting in deadly landslides, flooding in fields, and the destruction of thousands of houses", or something along those lines

I split the sentences and kinda went with your wording, but what's wrong with "flooded fields"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the "in" in "and in".

Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"high wind gusts left power outages" – "left" doesn't seem to be a particularly appropriate verb
"while also damaging buildings" – is the "while also" necessary? Maybe "high wind gusts caused power outages, overturned vehicles, and damaged buildings"?

Reworded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Flooding rains" no no no no no no no

Why? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"flooded a zoo in eastern Russia" – the crops part is worth noting in the lede, but probably not the zoo part.

Eh, I mentioned the crops previously, so it felt empty not including something else/distinct. Given the evacuations at the zoo, I think it's justified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually going to stop at this point and ask if you would mind actually giving the article a quick copyedit to sort out the litany of obvious prose issues like the ones I've listed above, and I'll take another look at the article again then. Cloudchased (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and done a reasonably thorough copyedit to improve flow, tighten redundancies, fix a few ambiguities, and generally smooth things out. Overall, I don't think it was really all that bad... there were a handful of obvious corrections to be made, but it's important to remember that the GA criteria don't require brilliant prose; nominated articles just need to be clear, concise, and grammatically accurate. At FAC I might comment that the prose is a little less engaging or colorful than I personally like, but for our purposes, I'd say we've pretty much satisfied the first GA criterion after my latest edits. I just ran into one peculiarity that I wasn't able to figure out on my own: Floodwaters covered expressways and parts of Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport, delaying or halting 400 flights. Weather-related delays affected over 4,000 travelers in Shanghai's two airports. This would imply that each delayed plane was booked with less than 10 flyers each, which seems dubious, but the source is offline and I couldn't check to see what was going on. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Julian. I removed the last sentence, when didn't mesh well with the previous one. The source said "over 4,000", so clearly with 400 flights affected, that number is much higher (and thus the 2nd sentence isn't needed). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"JMA upgraded Goni to a severe tropical storm, and further to typhoon status by the next day" – I think it reads better if you omit "further", imho.

This seems like a matter of personal preference so I'll let Hink decide. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"10 minute", "1 minute", "24 hour" – hyphenate!
"About two weeks after Typhoon Soudelor damaged houses in the Marianas Islands and caused an island-wide power outage on Saipan, Tropical Storm Goni affected the same island chain" – how about you reverse this sentence? (i.e., Goni affected the Marianas about two weeks after Soudelor damaged homes on the island chain)
"in the area" – which area?
I love en dashes, but is it necessary to use them instead of simply using parentheses (or a descriptor of PAGASA which would probably be shorter, in any case)?

Nominator's call. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"On the next day" – omit the first word
"An initial 8,426 people evacuated" → "Initially, 8,426 people evacuated"; "increasing drastically" → "drastically increasing"
"including 188 that were completely destroyed" → "of which 188 were completely destroyed"
Is there a reason you say the "Philippine Department of Social Welfare and Development" as opposed to merely the "Department of Social Welfare and Development"? Just wondering, since you didn't prepend other Philippine agencies as such (aside from PAGASA). In this case, since there don't seem to be agencies called the DSWD in other nations, it seems unnecessary.
"hospitals, nurseries" – missing an "and"
"average rain of two months" – slightly strange wording

Not quite sure how to make it less strange. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could reword the next sentence to "About 1,100 houses, mostly in Ussuriysk, were inundated, directly affecting 9,500 people" or something along those lines.
"More than 300 buildings sustained damage" – in Ussuriysk? Paragraph is a bit ambiguous about where it's talking about – start with "In Ussuriysk" or something when you get to talking about the city.
"and one bear drowned" – poor bear :(
"pf the typhoon" – typo

That's it. Cloudchased (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of most of the above comments since at least a few of them were probably my fault. Just a few points left for the nominator to decide. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing. Cloudchased (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]