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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
" ranking it as tied for the most-intense tropical cyclone on record at the time; however, this pressure has since been surpassed by two other typhoons." I'd change this to "At that time, it was tied for the most intense tropical cyclone on record; however, this pressure has since been surpassed by two other typhoons." The "ranking" seems weird to me IMO. YEPacificHurricane02:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This intensity ranked Nora as the most-intense tropical cyclone on record in the world, alongside Typhoon Ida in 1958; however, in post-storm analysis, it was noted that since the dropsonde did not record a pressure at the storm's center, Nora was likely slightly stronger than indicated.[4]" I'd break these two sentences up, but that's just me. YEPacificHurricane
"As the storm neared landfall in China, two ships became stranded over the South China Sea and sent out distress signals.[12]" what are distress signals? YEPacificHurricane02:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose – The target title is taken, and this primarytopic grab is not clearly justified. And the three RMs should have been done as one to save us a lot of redundant talk. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.