Talk:Typhoon Bess (1982)

Typhoon Bess (1982) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 3, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Japan Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 23:36, May 9, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Japan to do list:

Peer review: Kako River (Japan)
A-class review: None

Featured content candidates –

Articles: None
Pictures: None
Lists: None

Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One
Add requested images to articles that need them.
Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions.
Improve and expand Japan-related stubs.
Create some requested articles.
Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English.
Assess unassessed articles

On 19 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Typhoon Bess. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Todo[edit]

Intro, picture, impact, and more organization in general. Hurricanehink 15:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to get a picture on this week! Icelandic Hurricane #12 15:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm adding some more info as we speak. Hurricanehink 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This page is all depending on one source. We need to add additional citations and reliable sources on this page. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't edited by anyone else for at least the past 2 months! We'd better hustle up. Jeffrey Gu (contribs) 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Bess (1982)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 19:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yellow Evan, I am going to be reviewing this article today. Luckily my issues with this article are just a bunch of minor things. I may add more stuff later, just so you know.--12george1 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious (Curious George :P), where does this typhoon rank when it comes to cost of damage in Japan? I'm not real familiar with the basin, but I don't think I have seen very many typhoons in Japan cause over $1 billion USD in damage.
- It's likely up there, but I don't like making those kind of templates since there 1) ranky and 2) a pain in the ass. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked myself and couldn't find anything, so I'm gonna let this slide.--12george1 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"before it briefly turned southwest, After turning north-northwest" - That comma should be a period
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and later merged with a low pressure area atop of the Sea of Japan." - What day did this happen on?
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Typhoon Bess cut threw a 400 km (250 mi) swath that included the most populated portion of the nation." - Since this is a new paragraph, you should name which country this is in
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" the typhoon attained a minimum pressure of" - Wikilink minimum pressure to barometric pressure
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Many cars and trucks were stranded due to mudslides.[17] Air traffic was paralyzed.[18]" --> "Many cars and trucks were stranded due to mudslides;[17] air traffic was also paralyzed.[18]"
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, 25 ships ran aground or were washed away.[19] Two boats sunk.[6]" - Merge these two sentences
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anymore aftermath, or was that all you could find?
- All I could find. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the authors on reference #5 needs to be changed. They should be: Kenneth R. Knapp; Michael C. Kruk; David H. Levinson; Howard J. Diamond; Charles J. Neumann.
- Good now? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not done.--12george1 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was fixed during a discussion on IRC--12george1 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher for reference #21 doesn't make sense. Instead of "United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research", I think it should be "United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory". Remember to remove "Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory" from the |author= parameter.
- Changed. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This wasn't fixed either--12george1 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This was fixed during a discussion on IRC--12george1 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am going to be passing this article and listing it as a GA.--12george1 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 December 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — mw (talk) (contribs) 22:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Bess (1982) → Typhoon Bess – This Bess has been retired, and I think this warrants for a move to Typhoon Bess. 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 21:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. An example would be Hurricane Arlene (1987). Despite this Arlene being notable, it is still referred with the date. 🎩Incognito Fedora🎩 (talk) 23:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fletcher106 Uh no. You should read what I said again. I am saying that since this Bess is the one that got the name retired, the year should be removed. 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 19:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as said before, neither of these fulfill WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Fletcher106 (talk) 13:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I am not sure what the argument is here, is this being deemed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just because it was the last? Nonetheless, no evidence provided of this being the primary topic. Of the two standalone articles named "Typhoon Bess", this and Typhoon Bess (1974), both have similar pageviews, so cannot clearly determine a primary topic. Dank Jae 23:33, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Bess is in the unique situation of having been retired twice (first in 1974, reintroduced when the naming lists were reworked in 1979, then in 1982), so the usual "retired name = primary topic" line isn't applicable here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.