Talk:Typhoon Nelson (1982)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Nelson originated from a tropical disturbance southeast of Guam towards the end of March. " - March 19 isn't toward the end of March
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the system was initially poorly organized, the system "
- Made the second one "it". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Why not mention peak winds in lede?
- I hate doing this, but added, because it should be there. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"eight of which" - use "whom" when it's about people
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ten hours after the TCFA" - which you never mention
- Noted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Early on March 19, the JMA classified the system as Tropical Storm Nelson." - at that time, the JTWC was responsible for naming. Maybe just say "classified the system as a tropical storm."?
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"more conductive conditions" - did you mean "conducive"?
- That works. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" and by that afternoon" - you never mention a date in that paragraph
- Noted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"both the JTWC and JMA increased the intensity to 195 km/h (120 mph)" - not according to the infobox
- See below. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the JTWC indicated that Nelson strengthen slightly on March 25, and attained winds of 185 km/h (115 mph)" - I think you have these wind speeds messed up, as 195 is obviously bigger than 185 :P
- Reversed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Thereafter" - is the second sentence in a row having that word (The other being "Shortly thereafter"). Try changing it up
- Better? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the JMA had lowered the winds of 100 mph (160 km/h)." - I think you mean "to", not "of". And why mph first?
- I fixed both. Regarding the second, I always write everything in mph or knots first, then change it when I GAN it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Considered a "pre-season" storm by newspapers, Mamie required storm warnings for parts of the nation, which were broadcast via radio." - this article is about Nelson
- I put the wrong tropical cyclone down :P It is Nelson. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of 1,261 dwellings were leveled,[12] including 703 houses were destroyed" - you don't need the 2nd "were" if you have "including"
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"all but 45 of the town's 600 houses were demolished" - you need "and" here
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of 165,462 persons evacuated to shelters;[13] approximately 83,000 of which were homeless." - change semicolon to comma, and, once again, use "whom" for people. Does this mean they were homeless when they evacuated, or they became homeless due to the storm?
- Did both, and in answer to the third, it's probs the latter. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Widespread power outages occurred." - pretty short sentence
- I merged this and the one below it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Bridges were washed away." - so is this
"Eight of the casualties were due to drownings" - I'm sure more were from drowning, if there were over 50 deaths
- Put "at least". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think there might be an issue with the damage total. Ref 6 suggests 147 million in pesos, right? Well, you should fix the link to Philippines Measuring Worth to 1982, as it says 8.54 pesos per US dollar, which would be $17.2 million. That's far less than what you said.
- I can't do math here I guess :P I trust you and changed it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, the article is decent, just a little rough around the edges. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]