Talk:Typhoon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments

• WP:Lead -

• I normally leave this section until the last, since it is intended to both introduce the article and to summarise the main points.

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC) - It states "A typhoon is a mature tropical cyclone that develops in the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean .....Identical phenomena in the eastern north Pacific are called hurricanes, with tropical cyclones moving into the western Pacific re-designated as typhoons.", which I assume is a straight definition; but it is unreferenced (not a problem if the reference appears elsewhere in the article). However, it does not state why two different names are used for "Identical phenomena". I looked at Typhoon, which is a redirect to Tropical cyclone (a FA), so that did not answer the question. Since Etymology explains Typhoon, it would be "nice" to know why they are not hurricanes.

• I think the etymology section does explain it. Typhoon is the local Chinese term. I've added more to the section, which should also address your redesignation comment below. The definition is also added to the etymology section. Surprised it wasn't there already. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC) - The lead should not "tease" by including items that do not appear in the main body of the article: part of the "re-designation" aspect is restated in the Name sources, subsection I'll accept the part in the Lead as a "definition", but I'm not yet convinced that it is WP:Verifiable (I've not reviewed the main body of the article in depth yet, so I might change my view later).

• Check comment made above. This should be better understood now, with a reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Genesis -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC) - The first paragraph is unreferenced. The article is required to comply with WP:WIAGA and Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, so I would ask, as a minimum, for a citation that there are six main requirements ...

• The ref ended up in the second paragraph after a paragraph split. Fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the final paragraph states: "... all basins" and later "western Pacific basin and the north Atlantic basin" and "..two basins" are used. It would be nice to clarify "basins": they are (obviously) ocean basins, but in the context of this article are they simply the western Pacific basin and The ref the north Atlantic basin?

• Added line into lead about northwest Pacific basin. See if that makes it clearer. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
• I wikilinked basin in its first occurrence, in the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• There is a wikilink to Tropical cyclone basins, but it is pipelined to northwest Pacific tropical cyclone basin so its not obvious. I don't consider basin to be adequately explained. Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• I added a wikilink. Pyrotec (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 3, a web site, is only partially cited, it has a personal author(?), title and access date; I'm not been able to verify Christopher Landsea, however, there is a specified corporate publisher.

• Now reference 4, it is more fully cited. The author's name on the page lies under the image near the top of the web page. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I did not see the author's name, but it is obvious now that you have pointed it out. Pyrotec (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• Frequency -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 8, a journal paper, is only partially cited, it has a personal authors, title and access date; but no details of the journal in which it was published.

• I'm guessing this is the Padua published paper? If so, I did an extra web search, and it indeed became a refereed article, so it is now fully cited. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 8 is now Ref 10 (a pdf file, authors: James B Elsner, Kam-Biu Liu). Pyrotec (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• The ref 10 format should be proper now. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - Ref 11 appears to be a broken web link

• I've checked the refs from 9-13, and can't find a broken link. A couple of them have a pop-up .pdf file, however. Could this be the source of the issue? Thegreatdr (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Its currently Ref 13 (Edward B. Rodgers, Robert F. Adler, and Harold F. Pierce) which leads an 404 error here. Pyrotec (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Th

• Should be resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC) - (Current) Ref 12 (Colleen A. Sexton (2006)) is a book, so a page number or numbers should be given in the citation.

• Should be resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Paths, Basin monitoring & Records -

• These three sections look OK.

• The Lead -

• This is intended to both introduce the article and to summarise the main points; and it appears to cover both aspects. The Genesis section appears to be absent from the lead, but I'm not too concerned about it; naming of Typhoons is also absent and that is perhaps something that I would have expected to appear in summary for in the Lead.  Not done Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC) -

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 08:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That should address all the concerns now (I think). Thegreatdr (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern immediately above, concerning the Lead (naming of Typhons) has not been done. Pyrotec (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I added naming info into the lead. Is the remaining issue addressed now? Thegreatdr (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Overll summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations in acheiving another GA. Pyrotec (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)