Talk:Typhoon Jelawat (2018)

Typhoon Jelawat (2018) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 22, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 5 June 2023 by reviewer Turnagra (talk · contribs).

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific / 2018 FT TF Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the 2018 Featured Topic task force.

Micronesia: Federated States of Micronesia / Guam / Northern Mariana Islands / Palau Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Micronesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Micronesia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicronesiaWikipedia:WikiProject MicronesiaTemplate:WikiProject MicronesiaMicronesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Federated States of Micronesia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Guam work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Northern Mariana Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Palau (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Jelawat (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JayTee32 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JCMLuis, I'd be happy to review this article, I just noticed it's been waiting on one for over a month now. I'll take a good look through Typhoon Jelawat in a bit. Jay Tee⛈️ 21:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. 1a has been addressed. For No. 2a, that is just how the JTWC titled the warning. I messed up on the dissipation date as I overlooked the differences between the JTWC's and JMA's track data, so I corrected the date among other things. There were no other Pineapple Expresses affecting California around early April 2018. So even if the source didn't mention Jelawat, the other sources state that the storm's remnants entered the Pineapple Express and therefore affected California. No. 4 has been addressed as well as No. 6b. luis 💬 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as all issues are addressed I feel comfortable passing the article. Good work and thank you for an easy review. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Just a couple things.. "Immediately thereafter however, it began to quickly weaken amid a sharp increase of wind shear, falling below typhoon strength on March 31." This sentence is worded a bit weirdly, could we change the beginning and say something along the lines of "the storm began to weaken as wind shear sharply increased"? "Pohnpei" is repeated twice in the first sentence of the Met History The first paragraph of the met history needs to be copyedited, most of it's strangely worded and hard to follow. "The system continued to persist until it was last observed on April 2" by whom? When did the JTWC and JMA each stop tracking the cyclone? What's a culvert? (In Effects section) "Jelawat poured around 149 mm (5.87 in) of rainfall upon Yap" better wording needed "was later pronounced dead after being rescued along with two other swimmers" the two other swimmers were pronounced dead? Or just rescued?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Typically the "Effects" section of a TC article is named "Preparations and impacts". Otherwise, no issue with the structure
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	If the JTWC assessed Jelawat as a subtropical storm on April 1, why is FN 25 titled "Tropical Storm Jelawat? FN 5 states that Jelawat dissipated on April 1, not April 2 FN 42 doesn't at all claim or mention Jelawat as the cause of the Pineapple Express Ditto FN 43, could be an unrelated incident Other sources look good, just make sure that the templates are all the same. (i.e., author, title, url, publisher, etc. in that order)
	2b. 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).	Good usage of government sources
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Didn't find any issues after a quick check
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	There were a few lines with words like "only" or "barely". I'd remove those as they limit the neutral wording of the article.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	"Typhoon Jelawat during rapid intensification on March 30" rapid intensification is a verb, not a noun "Water vapor imagery of the atmospheric river pouring down rain upon California on April 7" sounds more like a story book verse than a neutral sentence.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'd be happy to pass once above issues are resolved.