Talk:Typhoon Mike/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

With the issues below having been addressed, the article satisfies the MOS policies for grammar, as well as general structure and layout. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a wealth of reputable sources, and does not appear to contain original research or unverifiable claims. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article covers all encyclopedically relevant aspects of its topic. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains a neutral approach to its subject. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article does not seem to have undergone any edit warring in the past year, according to a checkup of the past 100-odd revisions. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The three images used in the article are public domain, and each serves a relevant purpose illustrating the article. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

Meteorological history, paragraph 3: "Land interaction took toll on the typhoon on November 12 as cloud tops temperatures surrounding the eye..." Is "cloud tops" supposed to be plural in that statement, as presented? Just want to make sure.
- - Should be singular.
- ~~Also, "...took a toll...", right?~~ Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I've seen it worded like that on a regular enough basis for it to be assumed as a standard. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations:
- "Maximum storm alerts were raised in five islands of the central Philippines and lower warnings in the southern tip of Luzon island, where Manila is located, he said." Who said?
  - Just an old edit window c/p from a news article that never got axed. Re-wrote the entire sentence. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Authorities advised coastal residences to move to higher ground" Isn't that supposed to be residents?
  - Yes. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Impact:
- Caroline Islands: "Damage on Paula totaled $2 million..." I think that's supposed to be Palau, but I'm having trouble navigating the maze of citations and body text, so I'm posting it here.
  - Correct. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Philippines:
  - Paragraph 2: "Eighty-eight ships sunk at the Cebu City harbor, the most ships ever sunk at the Cebu City harbor". Since we already know by the first half that this sentence is about what happened at Cebu City harbor, wouldn't it suffice to say "the harbor" in the second half?
    - Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paragraph 3:
    - Note 1: "Offshore, seventeen people, including six Americans, were rescued on an oil rig, but sixty-eight other workers were evacuated." Given the text surrounding this sentence, wouldn't it make more sense to say, "Offshore, seventeen people, including six Americans, were rescued on an oil rig, and sixty-eight workers were evacuated"?
      - Yes.Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note 2: "Another ship called the Iligan Flores was missing off the coast of Mindanao but no reports about the fate of the passengers and crew." I think "...but no reports were made about the fate..." would be more grammatically correct.
    - Added a "there were". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Aftermath:
- Paragraph 1: "Philippines navy vessels being were utilized..." Oughtn't the "s" in "Philippines" to be dropped in this context? Also, the whole "being were..." thing.
  - I think you're right, and dropped "being". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragraph 2: "Typhoon Mike's damage to the infrastructure to Cebu..." Infrastructure to, or infrastructure of?
  - "Of" works better here probs. Switched. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragraph 4: "PAGASA also retired the name Ruping and was replaced with Ritang..." Replaced it with Ritang, right? Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wilhelmina Will: any update on this? Thanks in advance. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been caught up the past fortnight. Anyways, I thank you for these adjustments; it looks like a go-for now! To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has achieved GA status. I only hope it was worth the wait. Congratulations! To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]