Talk:Typhoon Nepartak (2003)

Typhoon Nepartak (2003) 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.

Typhoon Nepartak (2003) is part of the 2003 Pacific typhoon season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 20, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
October 27, 2014	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific 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).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 19:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a pretty good article.

"was a modest tropical cyclone which" - it should be "that"
"It is reported that 13 individuals lost their lives" - the first four words are redundant.
I think it's actually necessary, since there are no sources aside from PAGASA that suggest anywhere close to 13 deaths in the country. Further down in the article that is made more clear. Juliancolton (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article is in the western Pacific (where most countries use metric), the metric units should be first. I notice some inconsistencies.
"With weak wind shear to impede development" - does this mean the weak shear impeded development, or it didn't? I can't really tell. If it didn't, then I'd say something like "Weak wind shear allowed for development", or something.
"at 1200 UTC the next day" - given that there is only one date in the entire first paragraph, it couldn't hurt to say November 12 here.
"The system intensified gradually, but began to track quickly westward toward the Philippines." - I don't understand the "but", since that would imply something contradictory.
"The depression had favorably found its way" - the wording seems a little wonky to me, and seems a bit too anthropomorphic, IMO.
"Meteorologically," - this is the MH, so I don't think that's needed to start a sentence.
The problem was that the sentence came right after a long spiel about agency classifications, so I thought it was a nice transition into synoptic discussion. I can remove it if you think it deters from the sentence, though. Juliancolton (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the JTWC further upgraded 25W" - I think you should have a note somewhere, saying that 25W refers to JTWC intensity and stuff. I like how you did this, but it should be a bit clearer.
Well, it is said a couple times earlier in the article that the JTWC named it 25W, but if you still think it needs clearing up, I can add another footnote. Juliancolton (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"which had previously suppressed Nepartak to the south" - I wouldn't say "suppressed" is the best word here.
Suppression is a fairly standard term in meteorology for when a ridge blocks a low's northward movement. Juliancolton (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When did JMA downgrade the typhoon to a STS?
"The JTWC indicate" - any reason for present tense?
"although the JMA does make such mention" - should that be "does not" (or really "did not")?
Impact looks good!

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I added a few responses where I wanted you to take a second look, but otherwise I've carried out most of your suggestions. Thanks again :) Juliancolton (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]