Jump to content

Talk:Typhoon Soudelor (2003)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTyphoon Soudelor (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.
Good topic starTyphoon Soudelor (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
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2013Good article nomineeListed
October 27, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Comment

[edit]

Sorry Guys.. its a very weak article... Itfc+canes=me Talk Contributions 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Soudelor (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll review this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Lead, "It was the sixth named storm by the Japan Meteorological Agency, as well as the third typhoon." Of the season?
    • Preparations, "By June 16, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration" You've already linked and given the acronym for this a couple of paragraphs previously. Why not use the acronym here?
    • Preparations, first paragraph - What do these various storm signals mean in laymans terms?
    • Preparations, first paragraph - Why not link these places? Most of them are not easily recognizable to the average person who doesn't live in this area...
    • Impact and aftermath, "300 mm (12 in)", etc. Isn't centimeters to inches a more normal comparison?
    • Impact and aftermath, "Throughout the country, the storm damaged or destroyed 251 houses, of which 94 were destroyed." Can we reword to get rid of the redundant "destroyed"? Perhaps just ..."the storm damaged 251 horses, of which 94 were completely destroyed" or similar?
    • Impact and aftermath, "between Hsitou and Luku." Links?
    • Impact and aftermath, " ¥77.9 million (2003 JPY), $655,000 2003 USD)" Mismatched parentheses, but I'm not sure where the second opening one is supposed to be.
    • Impact and aftermath, "mostly due to fallen objects." fallen or falling? In other words, did falling objects land on people, causing injury, or did people hurt themselves on already fallen objects, such as by crashing a car into them?
    • Impact and aftermath, "rainfall at Hallasan on Jeju Province" - on Jeju or in Jeju?
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    • LOL, every time I read these articles I'm thankful I live in an area that only gets some of the leftover from one of these storms, and even that only occasionally! I made a couple more tweaks, but overall it looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Thanks for the quick replies, Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]