Talk:Typhoon Lupit (2003)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Lupit (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 09:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

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.	"variety of unfavorable conditions" Unfavourable to who? Can we be specific instead of saying unfavourable? " it moved generally to the west or west-southwest" It can only move in one direction at a time cant it? This isnt very concise and is a bit confusing. "The storm dropped rainfall that resulted in mudslides and flight cancellations." Seems a bit out of place at the end of that paragraph. From that sentence it doesnt sound like the damage was very severe, it cancelled a few flights? Thats the impression I get from it. Remove or rewrite please. "There was a weak circulation with cycling convection (thunderstorms) and weak outflow." Not very clear whats happening, seems very technical, could we rewrite for clarity? "prevented 60% of flights from being delivered." Seems like odd wording, flights arent delivered, the flights are delivering things, they themselves are not delivered. "gusty winds" could we remove the word gusty, replace with strong? "and gusts reached 158 km/h" can we call it wind? " Lupit was the first typhoon in 13 years to threaten Japan in the month of December.[17]" Is it accurate to say it threatened Japan, as it did actually do damage? Couldnt we say something like first typhoon to damage Japan in 13 years, in a more eloquent manner than that ofcourse. 'although several buildings were damaged, mostly to roofs." Doesnt really make sense Also, the lead section mentions that 'The storm dropped rainfall that resulted in mudslides and flight cancellations." But after reading the article we find out these things happened in Japan. Since the article seems primarily focused on FSM, couldnt we discuss the damage to FSM aswell?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"in November 2003 wrecked the food supply" Could you rewrite to remove the word wrecked? "on small islands in Yap State in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)" Could we make that many small islands, or something else, doesnt flow very well. " and wrecked the crops." Again, can we get rid of the word wrecked.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
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.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
	7. Overall assessment.

First off, thanks for the review. Not everyone is into tropical cyclones as much as I am, so I appreciate the effort.

For that "variety of unfavorable...", I was going for something more generic in the lede, but per your suggestion, I explained what they were. As far as the movement, it says "it moved generally to the west or west-southwest". It's not moving in two directions at once, just alternating. Granted, it's not a huge deal. I'll change it if you want, but I don't think it's problematic. Similar with the flight cancellations bit. The damage wasn't major in Japan, and the rainfall resulted in both mudslides and flight cancellations. Does that make sense, then? In that sentence about the outflow, I changed "cycling" to "pulsating", as I think that was the most confusing word in there. Let me know if that needs further tweaking. Regarding the flights being delivered, it refers to something earlier in the sentence with the delivery of water to the islands. Should I add "the water" to say "60% of the flight of water", or something? I thought "wrecked" was a fine word to use, just synonymous with destroyed. I didn't care much either way, so I changed the wording. Hope that works. I added "several" to the first sentence of the article (not as big of a fan of the word "many").

Lemme know if any of that still needs to be done, and thanks again :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with all those Hurricanehink. I just added a few more issues to the list, but shouldn't be too hard to fix. Retrolord (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I changed "gusty" to "tropical storm-force winds", but I did not remove the sentence that mentions specific "gusts". A gust is a meteorological term that is more specific than the vague "winds". It is accurate to say Lupit threatened Japan, because it could have made landfall; it did not, however. I used the wording based off the source, as it's not certain whether the storm 13 years prior struck Japan, caused damage, or merely threatened. Regarding the roofs bit, it specifies how the damage was mostly to roofs, and not to the rest of the building. Lastly, about the end of the lede, I clarified "there" [Japan] to show it is different from the FSM impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)