Talk:Typhoon Judy (1989)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Judy (1989)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.22 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments:

You're stuck with me again. Aren't you lucky. Well, let's get started:

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Question Needs work Acceptable

- If the storm was last seen in the Sea of Japan, how was the Soviet Union effected? The last sentence in the lead and the last paragraph of the article seem to contradict one another.

There's nothing within available sources to explain this; however, from satellite imagery I could see a band of heavy rain extending to the north of Judy that would be the likely culprit. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

- That would be OR, so we need some sort of concrete tie. I can see the pdf confirming that it disappated in the Sea of Japan, I can't see the sources that say anything about the Soviet Union. I'd have to see them before I make any recommendations. Please tell me how to get them, or send them to me.

Not sure why I didn't use this in the first place....there's an online source stating Judy as the cause of the floods in the Soviet Union. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the online source to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

- Great!. Marking as good.

- I performed a light copy edit. Please make sure that I didn't inadvertently compromise the accuracy of any of the statements made in the article.

All the changes look good, thanks! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable:

a. provides references: Question

- Do you consider yourself proficient at the high school level or above in both Japanese and Korean? If not, how did you translate the pieces in those languages (machine or ask-a-friend)? How sure are you of the reliability of that method? Are there comprable English language replacements? Note that none of these questions require you to change anything, at least not now, however I'd like for you to answer them before I promote.

To be honest, I'm at the whim of google translate. The only potential issue would be with the Korean sources since Digital Typhoon is available in English (I used the Japanese source since that's the original site). I'm always careful about adding information obtained through google translate and if something seems out of place, I wont add it. In most cases I'll also make sure there are multiple sources supporting a statement (which is harder for older events). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

- That is exactly the opposite of the answer I wanted to hear. I need to think on this, although one thing I would say is that if multiple sources that you're using confirm a given fact, then you should source that fact to at least two of the multiple sources.

The one citing the rainfall is easy to verify since it's numeric. I'm currently looking for someone fluent in Korean to translate the other two sources to verify the google translate info. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just got a response on one

"태풍 ‘쥬디’ 발생 :이재민 47,000명 긴급구호, 이동급식소 운영"

"Hurricane "Judy": provided emergency relief and mobile soup kitchen for 47,000 victims "

That verifies what's in the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The other source in question verified as well. The table of disasters was loss of life and damage in billions of won. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

- And the Japanese language one?

As I mentioned before, it's available in English but the original site is in Japanese so I linked the source there. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

- How did you get access to the Japan Economic Newswire sources? If you accessed them over the web through LexisNexis or a similar source, that should be noted so that people can follow the trail (paywall not withstanding).

Yea, they're all from LexisNexis. How would I convey that in the citation? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

- My gut reaction would be "Covert to Cite web". There might be a more specific template though.

Added (behind paywall) to each of the LexisNexis sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

- Err... no. That dosen't really help. To be blunt, it's not your job to care if it is behind a paywall or not, it's your job to detail exactly where you got it from. Saying "behind paywall" isn't helpful. Instead, find a way to link to the LexisNexis webpages, in the source itself. People will click and hit a paywall, or they'll have access and bypass the paywall, but what's important is that they can click to get to it.

There's no direct link to the articles, only the search engine for the site. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

- Then we should replace the "behind paywall" with the repository. You could go with "Accessed through LexisNexis" or something like that. Apologoies for all the confusion, I didn't know direct linking wasn't possible.

No problem, I've replaced them all with "accessed through LexisNexis" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Question Needs work Acceptable

- I've seen translations go pretty badly, so I really want to see the answer to that the first part of the question at 2a answered before I mark off 2c.

- Converted to "Needs work" because of the Soviet issue in 1a.

- Resolved

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

- I'm not comfortable with articles just sprouting up over the course of a few days, only ever being seen by the writer and one or two other people. However since this was started in December and someone else tweaked it then, before this expansion, I'm not going to ask for the article to have a short fallow period before the promotion.

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

- I swapped out the third image because the one previously there is, while probably acceptable, less clearly licensed than the one I replaced it with.

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer

a. images have alt texts: Acceptable

- Not really applicable in this case.

b. article is suitable for solid copy export: Acceptable

c. catch all general aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review:

Looks pretty good from my standpoint, with only the outstanding issues in 1a and 2a holding this. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Replies ahoy! Thanks for the review Sven! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

- This one isn't going to be as easy, is it. Drat. See my responses please. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

- Responded to the 2a concerns, cleared everything else. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

PASSED - All hoops have been jumped through, this is good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hurrah! Thanks again for the review Sven :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Typhoon Judy (1989). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140220035528/http://www.redcross.or.kr/gwangju/about/?index=2 to http://www.redcross.or.kr/gwangju/about/?index=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)