Talk:Typhoon Saomai (2000)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Saomai (2000)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 07:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I initially signed on to do this on January 18th, with an aim to get it done by January 19th/20th (the weekend my time). I ended up putting it off because it was tougher reading than I thought it would be. I found the article to be technically dense (relies heavily on jargon which is commonplace for people that follow tropical cyclones but difficult to understand for people that don't). This is something that most articles (and every tropical cyclone article I've read) struggles with, but I felt that this was particularly technically dense. That meant it was much slower going than I thought it would be.

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright: Needs work

• I am confused by your usage of "Mariana Islands" versus "Northern Mariana Islands" and "Guam". The article on the countries (okay, the U.S. overseas territories) are Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. The article on the islands is "Mariana Islands". It seems that in the section headers and in the "Areas affected" section of the infobox, you're using country names, in which case you should be using Northern Mariana Islands and Guam instead of Mariana Islands. Is there something I'm missing?

The sources I used generally talked about the 'Mariana Islands', leaving some ambiguity, but I've decided to change the aforementioned terms to Northern Mariana Islands, since I could not find a source that documented effects distinctly in the Marianas but outside the Northern Mariana Islands. In addition I have added Guam where distinction from the NMIs is needed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding the sentence "Back in favorable conditions, the typhoon entered a phase of rapid intensification beginning six hours later." (Meteorological history section) - Is an article or a section of an article that describes "favorable conditions" for us to link to there? Either Sea surface temperature#Tropical cyclones or a specific section of Tropical cyclogenesis would seem to make the most sense. I think that would help readers unfamiliar with tropical cyclones, especially since the article rapid intensification is just a mess.

I've decided to link the term to the tropical cyclogenesis#Requirements for tropical cyclone formation section, as this would appear to the most optimal linkage. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Related to my first point, the "Mariana Islands" subsection jumps back and forth between describing the storm in the Northern Mariana Islands and describing it in Guam. It reads as if you're treating the two as one territory (which, by using the subheading "Mariana Islands", you are), but I think that's a bad idea. Readers that don't know that region's geography very well are going to think that the two territories are the same thing. At the very least, I'd have all of Guam in one paragraph and all of Northern Mariana Islands in the other, instead of having some of both in each.

In distinguished the two a bit better and changed the section header to differentiate between the two island nations. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "In South Korea, the northern and southern Kyongsang provinces were the most impacted." - In this sentence, "Kyongsang" links to the article "Gyeongsang", which is focused on the territory during the Joseon Dynasty. It would probably make more sense to just link to Gyeongsangbuk-do and Gyeongsangnam-do, which is what I am assuming you're describing.

Linked to the two different articles and changed the Romanization of the province names. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Please check my copyedits to make sure that I did not inadvertently introduce any errors.

I appreciate your copy-edits, and upon check errors were not introduced. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Acceptable

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

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

a. images that should have alt texts have them: N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: This one took well over two hours to get through, but I've gotten through it and it looks like it needs only minimal changes. Let me know when you're ready for me to do a second pass. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Second pass - Looks good. PROMOTED. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)