Talk:Typhoon Cary (1987)

Typhoon Cary (1987) 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: August 3, 2017. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Typhoon Cary (1987) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 June 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the final mission from the 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron was flown into Typhoon Cary?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Cary (1987).

Wikipedia

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).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Cary (1987)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 04:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello YE! I will be reviewing this article tonight.--12george1 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and on August 17, the typhoon peaked in intensity." - How strong was it?
- I usually avoid this in the lead, given I don't like covering the mentioning the double agency thing. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"in northern Luzon while at peak intensified." ---> "in northern Luzon while at peak intensity."
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"country while damage totaled $5.58 million (1987 USD) in damage to the country" - Erase everything after "(1987 USD)". Also, add the note you used later in the article (note 3)
- Nah, I used white out instead. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm weakened as it approached Vietnam, and on August 23," - You could have linked Vietnam in the opening sentence, not here
- Sure. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"the JTWC starting watching the system" - (1. Link and explain what JTWC stands for and (2. "started", not "starting"
- Done and done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, Betty's outflow] inhibited development, but conditions" - Random closing bracket at the end of the word "outflow"
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The final Western Pacific Hurricane Hunter mission – associated with the 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron – was flown through Cary later that day, " - Was this the last ever flight into a western Pacific cyclone or just the last with the 54th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron? Either way, that sounds interesting and might be worth mentioning in the lead
- It was the last Navy flight into a WPAC storm, but there's been research missions since. I don't think this fits anywhere in the lead, sadly. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
" which resulted in 55,567 people or 13,247 families seeking shelter." - In the lead you said that this many people became homeless, but here it says they sought shelter
- Cleared up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and the Japan Meteorological Agency in their first usage in the refs. Otherwise, you aren't practicing what you preach :P
- I usually don't link the JTWC/JMA on refs though (or anything already in refs unless they're used in several refs for that matter), but I'll do it here since you asked. This is different from your case where you link stuff like NBC and not NHC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's several references with no URL. That's not a problem, but I think a lot of them do have accessible links, especially the news articles from UPI. You can go here and search for part of the title. Make sure you set the year to 1987. Don't forget to add the accessdates
- Wow, I've actually been waiting for someone to bring this up in a GAN for four years, and you're the first, which is odd given you've reviewed 60% of my GAN's - all that have the same problem you describe. Given I have the {{subscription required|via=Lexis Nexis} stuff, I don't see it particularly problematic for GAN, but if you really want me to add them, I will. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References 6 and 7 have first name first and then last name (Kenneth R. Knapp; Michael C. Kruk, etc.), while references 8, 9, and 11 have last name first (Padua, Michael V.)
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Notes section should go before the References section
- Moved. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it--12george1 (talk) 04:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review as always. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a user who pointed out that in a number of our articles, there are instances where a news article with an accessible URL is cited, but yet we don't include the URLs in the references. Preferably there should be a URL, but since I don't think this is mandatory, I'm still going to pass this article and list it as a GA.--12george1 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Typhoon Cary, August 1997.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]