- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Typhoon Ofelia (1990)
edit
- ... that Typhoon Ofelia was the worst typhoon to hit eastern Taiwan in 30 years? Source: JTWC ATCR "Media releases said the storm was the worst to hit eastern Taiwan in 30 years." (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
Created by Yellow Evan (talk). Self-nominated at 04:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC).
The article was not Created, Expanded at least fivefold, or Promoted to good article status within the past seven days. However, given that the article was expanded to 1/2 the present content last August, this reviewer presumes that the nominator intended to nominate the page on the basis of recent promotion to GA. This may be a simple oversight, but the talk page does not yet indicate promotion to GA.
Given the nominator's outstanding record of GAs and the consistency of this article with other Hurricane GAs, this article may soon be resubmitted to DYK on that basis. IveGoneAway (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: Compared to the (limited) reviews this reviewer has personally received, the lead paragraphs seem to have insufficient inline citation; however, other hurricane articles by the nominator have been promoted to GA with less citation in the lead. Certainly, the good information the author placed in the lead paragraphs came from several reliable sources with which the nominator has much experience; so, why could those sources not be cited? IveGoneAway (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: The facts in the lead are repeated with inline citations in the body. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- It was created on 1/16 though and nominated on 1/23. YE Pacific Hurricane 07:40, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Right, OK, I see the move from your sandbox on 1/16. Thank you for your patience. I will resume the review. IveGoneAway (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
The article is large enough and was moved to the article mainspace withing 7 days of the nomination. The hook's fact is cited in the article (page 61 of the source). Inline citation in the body is detailed (offline sources accepted in good faith), with no copywrite violation. QPQ is met. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- * Comment: The mention of the second typhoon in the first sentence is a hook in itself, but it took a read through the article to find a that the second typhoon was Percy; I am reluctant to second guess the GA reviewers on their expectations of inlines on the lead, but could not the statement "the first of two typhoons to directly affect the Philippines within a week" get a citation or explanation, as this is a relatively significant event in a humanitarian sense? IveGoneAway (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The article is large enough and was moved to the article mainspace withing 7 days of the nomination. The hook's fact is cited in the article (page 61 of the source). Inline citation in the body is detailed (offline sources accepted in good faith), with no copywrite violation. QPQ is met. IveGoneAway (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)