Talk:1983 Pacific typhoon season/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • My main issue is with the layout and content of the article. I am thinking that a style closer to that of 2002 Pacific hurricane season might make the article easier to read and understand. The main differences I see between these two layouts are:
  1. The season summary is shorter. It includes more general summations (5 storms did this, 12 storms did that), rather than individual summaries of every storm, which gets a little mind boggling after a while. Please also note that the summary should be completely referenced. This is because, even though you have most of the information in the individual storm entries below, information gets moved around a lot on WP, and so references should be able to be easily moved as well.
  2. The timeline in the season statistics section. This gives a great visual overview, in one screen, of everything that happened during that season.
I think that these two changes would much improve the article, making the information more easily accessible and easier for the reader to wrap their mind around. You are, of course, free to disagree with me :)
 Done, or so I think. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • See above. Plus, there are a couple of storms where the second paragraph is referenced, but the first paragraph isn't. See Ellen and Lex.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • There could stand to be more information about some of the storms. For example Super Typhoon Wayne (Karing) killed 105 people, but is only given 3 sentences. There is also impact information missing from a bunch of the (what I'm assuming to be) smaller storms. Even if they didn't do anything, just put that in.
    • Were there any sort of pre-season predictions? Were any records set this year? Were any names retired?
  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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • The same image is used in the infobox and in the storm summary section. This is redundant.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I have some concerns about the layout of this article, referencing, coverage and image use, so I am putting this article on hold. Due to my other concerns, I haven't completed a full review of the prose yet. Let me know if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Per Dana's request, I looked over the article, and I'm going to have to agree with some of his her concerns. The article needs more overall information, as nearly all of content is from the same source. Super Typhoon Forrest, a very strong and deadly storm, contains three sentences of information, yet Tropical Storm Ruth, a much weaker storm that caused no damages, contains a full paragraph. Also, some sections on landfalling storms such as Tropical Storm Herbert provide no damage information. Also, it would be great if the season summary could be sourced. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I expanded out Sarah, Wayne, and Forrest, albeit slightly in the case of Wayne because there was little additional information than what was provided in the JTWC report, despite several google searches. Web searches regarding Herbert of 1983 yielded no additional information. The timeline was added, though like the 1982 Pacific typhoon season article, the text is missing (apparently this is a known problem with the timeline function.) The main sources of information for the tropical cyclones just happen to be places which weren't significantly impacted by them, so I'm limited to the JWTC and HKO summaries. There are no seasonal predictions for any tropical cyclone basin prior to 1984. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I really wish the GA reviews were consistent from season to season, because Julian's and Dana's suggestions don't fit project standards what is done in most season articles. For example, in the 1982 Pacific typhoon season article, a storm-by-storm summary was insisted upon by the reviewer per the project standards. In the 1939 Pacific typhoon season article, it is a very brief summation (which was what we originally had for the 1982 Pacific typhoon season article before the review.) I can easily reference the summary section and will see what I can do about expanding out some of the weak systems which made landfall, but in the case of the TDs which were only acknowledged by HKO, there is just no information other than what is currently provided. I do not plan on shrinking the season summary until the project can agree upon whether this section needs to be within these season articles or not. It's better/easier to have too much at this stage of editing than too little. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please point me to a link with the project standards for season articles on it? This would make things much easier on my end... Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The link is here. In looking back through it, although it is stated generally that articles should have a season summary, most GA season articles have a storm-by-storm summary. If there is no clarification within the project (I posted a comment yesterday) by tomorrow morning, I shortened the summary per your suggestion since there is no consensus on how detailed the season summary should be. Let me know if the new version is to your liking. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Second Review[edit]

I'm going to start another review template, so that my comments don't get lost in the above conversation and comments. Let me start off by saying the storm summary looks much improved to my eyes, but you may want to keep bugging the project until they set up some sort of firm guidelines so we don't have another situation like this.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I still think it's funky what's happening with the timeline. Why is the text showing in the other articles (see the 2002 Atlantic article for an example), but not in others (such as this one)?
because the timelines in those articles that have a timeline showing the text havent been edited since before the bug was discovered Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Is there a reason that Ben is listed after Carmen, if they formed and dissipated the same day?
    • In Typhoon Lex, you say "At least 200 fishermen were killed,[2] with 81 perishing from an oil drilling ship which was sunk during the storm." I'm assuming (although correct me if I'm wrong) that the 81 were not part of the 200. If that is true, can you change "with 81 perishing" to "and 81 perished" to prevent this confusion.
    • Were any names retired after this season?
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A few things with prose, but the article is getting much closer. I don't think any of these things will take much time to fix/explain to me :) Thanks for all your hard work so far. Dana boomer (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have little experience with the timelines, and others are telling me this is a persistent problem within new timelines. It's quite annoying to code in the first place, because the first couple coding tries it doesn't even show up until you add random blank lines! I fixed the Lex problem you noted. As for Ben and Carmen, Carmen's TD formed first. Since this wasn't obvious from the dates within the infobox, I shuffled them around into alphabetical order. All of the JTWC names used this season were used in the 1986 Pacific typhoon season and 1987 Pacific typhoon season, so no JTWC names were retired. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your hard work. That sucks about the time lines...hopefully it will get fixed soon. Everything looks good, so I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)