Talk:2015 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Raising Standards?[edit]

Maybe adding more decent information in each sections with no sentences that aren't sourced will raise the article's standards. I really hope that this article will become a GA like some other season articles because it is one of the most active seasons for several years. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going through the article and souring bits up will help improve the articles quality, as would expanding or contracting some of the sections so that they tell the story of each system in a reasonable way.Jason Rees (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: It seems like you are helping too :) . Looks like I am nearly done with this article with a few more wording and sourcing. What would you give this article now, compared to what the article was like about 3 months ago? Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is a long way to go until we have all the sections up to scratch, but we are getting closer to the stage where we can raise the rating of this article to C.Jason Rees (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Anything else to do, boss? We still have about half of the storm sections to be fully completed. Season summary section maybe finished, but I would like to add more stuff in there if necessary. Also the starter (top info/section) should be expanded as well, problem is TSR did not issue a 2015 PTS summary about it. Those are my goals. Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The seasonal summuary section and lead will come with time, but for now we need to go through CAREFULLY and see whats needs to be tidied up. For example Melor and Etau could do with an expansion of their MH's which will ultimately benefit this article. I can tell you without a doubt that we will not have 620 references, when the article is all said and done.Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: I got two things from what you said. 1.) Yes I believe that a lot of these sections still needs expansion, but are you sure about Etau and Melor? And 2) The reason why I did a different setup few days ago when I combined the References and External Links section was due to the fact there are more than 550 refs, so I need to put a button that hides the references (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2015_Pacific_typhoon_season&diff=729028975&oldid=729028232). But this guy reverted me and I understand because of MOS:DONTHIDE. Should we cut down the info and refs? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if you have a look at the articles for Etau and Melor, then you will see what i mean about the MH's needing expanding. In fact I have already made a start at cleaning them up and expanding them. Once this process is done then the sections will be reworked with better quality information and hopefully we will get the number of references we are using down. I do not particularly see the need to combine the external links and reference sections and would have RV'd you myself as we shouldn't be hiding the references.Jason Rees (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. The reason why I decided to combine the sections and to hide the refs was because to the fact that we have too many references, which is making the article length too big. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do have too many references but if we clean the sections up, while expanding them and sourcing them, we should be able to get the article length down to a reasonable size.Jason Rees (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: What's the key thing to do to reduce the sources? (And it's weird how we will be 'expanding' sections and in the same time 'reducing' sources as they are complete opposites) Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing that we need to do is too check what we are saying on each section is true, verifiable and is relevant to the article. For example something like "At the same time, according to Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, Noul had taken on annular characteristics" is not overly relevant and the annular stuff is probably picked up by some other source. We also have to ensure that each section is telling a story that is flowing and easy to follow and for example Nouls isn't, while Bavi's does.Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a look at my edits to the sections for Bavi, Haishen and 26W, I think you will see what I mean about removing references while expanding the sections.Jason Rees (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For now @Typhoon2013: I would suggest that you help out by playing with Onyok or copyediting Bavi and 26W to ensure that they are up to scratch.Jason Rees (talk) 11:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I just did the section of Onyok. I followed what's it like for 26W (and Bavi) and looks like those sections are a bit simplified, but with decent detail, which is fine. Is the section of Onyok fine? Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am glad that you followed the general style of Bavi and 26W and your writing skills are starting to show signs of developing. You should also notice that I have tried to tell the story of the system while writing them, which is what you should aim to be doing more off. Having, just nipped through my email archive of the JMA's WWJP25 bulletins quickly, I can confirm that the JMA stopped monitoring Onyok on the 19th, however, you can just cite Steve Young's December tracks for that. I was rather surprised that you decided to remove the JTWC BT for Onyok in favor of an advisory on the system rather than a prognostic reasoning. You will find that if you use the Prog Reasoning's that Onyok did not have "enough convection" over its low level circulation in fact it was sheared off to the northeast. I also feel that you could do a lot better if you slowed down and spent more than 15 minutes researching the section and looking through the advisories. As a little tip: try writing the story completely while referencing it and then we can worry about what to knock out later. Also did Onyok have any impact?Jason Rees (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: Thank you for replying and for the feedback. When I add information to a storm section, my style is when I am writing the section, I am reading the JTWC prog reasoning also alternatively. For the impacts of Onyok, the system caused relatively minor impacts, and I am now researching more about it from PH sites. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The JTWC progs and STWA's are a priority source and not one to be looked at alternatively imo. Also make sure you do add any impact you find from Onyok into the section while you rework it too take into consideration my comments.Jason Rees (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some cuts to some sections (eliminating some redundancies/wordiness, if requested, I can elaborate further on what I cut), but a few things to keep in mind (will add more as I go through).

  • Dujunan, Mujigage, and Kilo need JMA peak intensity.
  • Koppu section needs to be finished.
  • Move all references of advisories to Template:cite report.
  • More impact for like everything but I understand the storm articles aren't exactly models here either (save Vamaco, which I didn't touch). YE Pacific Hurricane 08:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 271 external links on 2015 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Pacific_typhoon_season/Archive_3&oldid=1145832840"