Talk:Typhoon Nancy (1982)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cloudchased (talk · contribs) 15:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, YE – I'll be reviewing this.

I've done a quick read through the article and the prose is simply not up to scratch in many spots. Here's some examples (I'm not going to comment on every single problem, as that would take a long while):
"On October 10, Nancy, Tropical cyclogenesis occurred." This simply isn't comprehensible, and doesn't really elaborate on how it developed at all.
- It is and this is the LEAD NOT THE BODY. The Nancy wasn't suppose to be there. That's what I get for doing an article on New Years Eye. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Its winds were reduced to tropical storm strength, but Nancy re-intensified to typhoon" – typhoon status, no?
- Nah, an "a" was. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Philippines, damage was the worst in Cagayan and Isabella." The second "the" is extraneous.
- Disagreed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start sentences with numbers! >:(
- Where??? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lede as a whole is sub-par and rather chunky. It really doesn't elaborate much on the storm's causes for development and seems rather hard to read. You mentioned many damage totals in the impact section, yet none are mentioned in the lede. You don't mention any damage other than those to residences, either, while the impact section notes significant damage to crops.
- Because it's the lead, not the body. However, I totally forgot about those damage totals. I think I added them
The MH is almost all statistical and goes into little meteorological depth. The 1982 TCR mentions details such as a strong mid- and upper-level circulation encouraging Karen's intensification, a monsoonal flow, and damage to 185 square miles of "winter rice crops". It also gives a death total and number of homeless, yet the article incorporates none of these details and is essentially a somewhat incoherent rant about the best track. This is all on pages 106 and 107.
- Some of the things you named belong the the impact; the others I added. FTR, I have homeless ttoals in the ar4ticle. The word "Displaced" is simply a synonym for "homeless" sir. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The MH section also repeats the same abbreviations awfully frequently – each sentence seems to mention either "JMA" or "JTWC," and elaborates only with intensity, changes in strength, winds, pressure, and time. The lack of meteorological details and redundancy is frustrating.
- Ever seen a non-NHC article? They all have those to some degree. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"rendered as missing due to the storm" is an extremely strange wording.
- TAM uses "rendered as missing" all the time so I kinda borrowed it from him. Ill get a hammer and axe the "due to the storm" part. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"35,7444 residents"? What the heck?
- They were homeless. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Karen"? This is about Nancy.
- Whoops. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, references should follow punctuation.
It kinda does here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
United States Airforce → United States Air Force
- That's what happens when I c/p from other articles :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, the prose throughout the article is not all that well-written and the article is far from comprehensive. The MH is essentially written as if raw data is being rewritten into paragraph form. There's so much more meteorological in the report you cited that was never mentioned.
- I added some data, but I don';t wanna go into the JTWC forecast so much. Wanna know why? Because the JTWC is unofficial, and it is odd to cover the JTWC forecast and not the JMA ones, which are not anywhere to be found online. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, while the article is well-cited, its prose is substandard and does not utilize the sourced content well, and as such, I'm regretfully failing this. Sorry, YE. Cloudchased (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you leave it on hold; if you are "reretfully" failing this :P Okay, in all seriosuness, I fully understand why you chose to fail this review and I could be wrong here, but I don't think you've looked at very many non-WHEM articles. However, some of the issues here anre totally my fault (in particular the one about the damage totals not being in the lead). There were tons of other issues (no Vietnam impact in lead, capitalization issues that you did not point out), and I thank you for trying to keep the number of comments here limited. Happy News Years! Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]