Talk:Typhoon Fred/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll get this review. I'll have more substantive comments in the next few days and I'll need to brush up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones policies in the meantime. I generally do the majority of my editing when I'm at work, so it may be hit or miss if I'm available at a specific time. I will, however, respond within 24 hours. Etriusus (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some first impressions:

Overall, the page looks pretty good. I am someone who tends to stick with it till the article is passed, even if it takes longer than the standard 7 days. Please reach out if you need any help. I will likely perform some C/Eing myself.

• Right off the bat, I am a tad bit confused by the lead sentence. The first sentence should be a basic description of what the article's subject is, the current sentence is just a fact about the Typhoon. Try to do what Typhoon Haitang does for the intro sentence. (per MOS:FIRST)

  Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Links need to be fixed up a bit, there's a number of terms that should be linked but aren't. (i.e. tropical depression, coastal marine ecosystems, etc)

  Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Early the next day, Use the actual date.

  Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please check to make sure sources have the authorship in the actual citation, a quick double-check would be greatly appreciated (I'll review the sources in due time).

  I believe this is already the case. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• I am not super familiar with the topic but inHg is somewhat of a lesser-used unit of measurement. Can you put a mmHg conversion in parenthesis?
• Infobox looks good
• You can cut the stub template at the bottom.

  Cut. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• can you see if [Weather Disaster Report (1994-428-03)] (in Japanese). National Institute of Informatics. 桧山支庁. 2022. Retrieved January 25, 2022 source is still good? It error 502ed when I checked the source.
• Likewise check [Typhoon 199416 (FRED) - Disaster Information] (in Japanese). National Institute of Informatics. 2022. Retrieved January 25, 2022.
• [Weather Disaster Report (1994-927-02)] (in Japanese). National Institute of Informatics. 沖縄県宮古支庁. 2022. Retrieved January 25, 2022.
• It appears National Institute of Informatics sources are erroring when I attempt to access them. Is there a VPN I need to access this or are the links dead?

  So, it appears that the site is actually down at the moment. I'm not sure what else can be done in this moment? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• In fact, the size of its eye varied considerably Why did it vary?

  Source does not say. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• of which ¥388.24 million was from agriculture Please reword.

  Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Approximately, 100 buildings were affected by the floods, of which one was destroyed, and three people were injured. please specify what province this occurred in.

  The previous sentence does this. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• "practice was amended" the practice of illegal deckhands or the practice of letting them on the island?

  Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• potent -Puffery

  Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• three previous typhoons caused excessive flooding that left 20 people dead Specify the typhoons, and the sentence as a whole is a bit run-on.

  Broke up the sentences. The source doesn't state the typhoons, and it'd be OR for me to guess. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Another person was injured this is very out of place, and probably not notable.

  Removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• third quarter growth growth of what? the GDP?

  Yes, added. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fred exacerbated the effects of several significant weather disasters across China during the first six month of China -sentence doesn't make sense.

  Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• While market-oriented reforms were these reforms before Fred? The line later on These moves exacerbated Fred's destructiveness implies that the policy was before the typhoon. If it means that the impacts of Fred were amplified, then the last paragraph needs to be clarified to reflect that.

  Clarified. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

TropicalAnalystwx13 Here is my feedback on the article, please reach out if you need any clarification/help. Etriusus (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Etriusus, thank you for the review. I believe I've addressed everything. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

TropicalAnalystwx13 Excellent work. Thank you for getting back so soon, I messed around with my VPN for a bit and managed to get into the site. Hopefully, the international link will resolve itself. I am not concerned about it for the time being but I'd recommend archiving the links once the site is back up. I have a few more edits. Once this is done, the article will be ready to be passed.

• Its effects were concentrated in the Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Fujian provinces across the southeastern section of China, where they were described as the region's worst in 160 years and contributed to the most severe flooding across the southeastern provinces in 70 years. Please specify who "its effects" and "they were" are referring to.
• Trees were downed, train tracks were cut off, and roads were washed out or covered by mudslides. Is this really notable? I would assume this would come with most typhoons.
• "China - Floods Jun 1994 UN DHA Situation Reports 1-8 - China". This source is missing biographical info.

  Hey, Etriusus, I took care of the first and third comments. If it's okay, I left the second sentence in. It's generic information, but I think one generic sentence with some pertinent information is fine versus if I, say, went into detail on every road that was affected. If you strongly disagree, I can remove it. Otherwise, thanks again! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 05:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say it's probably fine as is then. It would be insane to expect every road affected. Etriusus (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Yes

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Article passes GA review. Good work!

TropicalAnalystwx13, the article passes with flying colors. Probably one of the most painless GA reviews I've done in a while. Thank you for being so attentive and quick with your responses. Congrats on another tropical storm GA. Etriusus (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)