Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Pat (1985)
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Typhoon Pat (1985)
edit
... that the 1985 Typhoon Pat (pictured) killed 23 people?
- Reviewed: Not a self-nomination
Improved to Good Article status by Yellow Evan (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC).
Improved to GA status on the same day it was nominated for DYK, which means it fulfills the basic criteria. Hook is supported by an offline source and AGF. If you can, please add the online source. This looks ready for promotion. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 05:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Did you check the online sources for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Oceanh — Please look over close paraphrasing and let me know when you are done so I can give it another look. Thanks, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @ComputerJA — Thank you for the review. I already made some spot checks for close paraphrasing, but I think Yoninah wants the reviewer to check this and report the outcome. I may gladly assist by pointing to the tool and the most relevant URLs to check. Try run the following: [1], [2], [3], and check the resulting reports. I would also like to run these: [4], [5], but they time out from my site. Oceanh (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Removed from prep area; awaiting approval from reviewer or another editor. Yoninah (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Oceanh: I don't know, the hook doesn't seems to be very interesting. I got some hooks that may sound better:
:ALT1:... that 165 flights were cancelled because of Typhoon Pat?:ALT2:... that more than 2,000 homes were flooded in Japan due to Typhoon Pat?- Feel free to suggest new ones. Also, pinging @Yellow Evan:, the person who improved the article to GA.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Cloudchased, since Oceanh nominated it, it's up to Oceanh to withdraw it, and to decide how much weight to give the opinion of Yellow Evan as creator. Of course, if a good hook can't be found, the nomination can't pass. I notice that ComputerJA originally gave the article a pass because a GA automatically meets DYK criteria, but nothing could be further from the truth. The DYK review must be just as thorough as with non-GAs and the reviewer needs to check all the DYK criteria—we have had several GAs that have needed additional editing to meet the DYK requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- ALT3 ... that during Typhoon Pat (pictured), ninety-five Japanese fishing boats took refuge in North Korea?
- Oceanh, This is found in the last sentence of the article and could be the last-place quirky hook. North Korea is unfriendly to almost all outsiders and was under no obligation to give those fishermen refuge. Japan and North Korea have had bad relations since the Japanese occupation of Korea. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Striking all but ALT3. Needs a reviewer to check for close paraphrasing and to approve ALT3. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, this needs a full review including those things, since ComputerJA gave much of the review a pass because the article was a GA, which isn't supposed to happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
- Full review for ALT3 from scratch: New enough (for 20 May which was the date of GA status), and long enough. Offline citation #20 for ALT3 accepted AGF. No disambig links found. No problems with external links, except that the citation #1 link to a pdf file is slow in my village (sigh) but OK for DYK. Hook image and article images are free. Article is objectively written, i.e. neutral, and fully cited. No copyvio or close paraphrasing found, after checking all external links in citations, using dup detector. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)