Talk:Typhoon Faxai (2001)
Latest comment: 1 month ago by I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh? in topic GA Review
 | Typhoon Faxai (2001) 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. Review: March 8, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png)
GA Review edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Faxai (2001)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh? (talk · contribs) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Calling dibs/I will review this within the week. I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh? (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- The first two paragraphs in Meteorological history should both be split into two because they are very long atm.
- 31W is not italicised while 33W is. I believe they must be consistent.
- tropical tropical cyclone, must it be stated twice or was this in error?
- Link UTC.
- JTWC estimated that Faxai was a typhoon in 18:00 UTC, to JTWC estimated that Faxai was a typhoon at 18:00 UTC.
- In Christmas Day, to On Christmas Day.
- The LLCC and convection however, remained, to The LLCC and convection, however, remained.
- Remove the link to Kosrae in Preparations and impact because it is already linked in the above section.
- Damage was also reported to banana crops. I believe must be Damage to banana crops was also reported. You employ this style of writing throughout the article and it is used correctly, but I believe it does not work here, or at least I have never seen it used in this way. Feel free to kindly refute/correct me.
- The west shore of the island experienced coastal flooding, as many rocks were lifted onto the road of that portion the last two words in this extract are ambiguous: what is that portion referring to?
- Pohnpei must not be linked either for the same reason as Kosrae.
- Is the sizeable portion dedicated to the indirect death really necessary?
- I'm not sure if you are referring to the one in Guam or the one in Kosrae, but I have trimmed the one in Guam since I don't think the one in Kosrae had much detail. luis 💬 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes this is what I was referring to; apologies for the ambiguity! I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh? (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- the ten people who lived in the island at the time, can be more concise: the ten residents of the island at the time.
- Spotcheck
Passes with flying wikitext.
@JCMLuis: you are a very talented writer. I have finished my review. I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh? (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh?: I have addressed your concerns. luis 💬 16:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- Lovely! Looks more than eligible for Good Article status now. I clicked the 'help me choose' button and this is what it generated - strange, huh? (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.