Jump to content

Talk:Typhoon Nida (2004)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTyphoon Nida (2004) 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed

Assessment/Merge

[edit]

Nice. I'll put it at a start for now, but I think it can easily became a B class, though I'm not so sure about GA. Good luck! íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a merge. There's no additional info here - a lot of it is really just useless - and there's even factual errors IN THE INTRO. The images aren't even high-res! A lot of work needed. Merge. – Chacor 18:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, merge it unless new information can be found. --Coredesat talk! 19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...OK. The article isn't very good. The only reason why it looks long is because it is laden with superfluous information. The entire storm history should only be 3 paragraphs. Also, it doesn't even use JMA! All the wind speeds are unofficial and, thus, inaccurate. The impact section, which is supposed to be a fairly important part of the article, presents itself in a very unorganized manner and is fairly boring. Almost all of it is statistics. There's only a little description of the actual impact of the storm; 700 houses damaged, the deaths, and how the rare tornado caused damage. Are there any specifics about the damage? If that is all the info that is available on the storm, I agree, it should be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this gets merge, which I now agree it should, I think I'm gonna move this to my sandbox to work on. I'll just need help with the JMA stuff. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Nida was numbered 04W by JTWC, not 20W. RaNdOm26 10:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I mean by there's errors in the intro - PAGASA also don't use the term "super typhoon". – Chacor 10:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I doesnt matter. Storm05 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And besides JWTC is better and accurate than JMA. Storm05 12:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely wrong. It does matter, otherwise it's false info. And JMA is official in this basin. If you can't accept that then I'd say don't do WPac articles, because all you're giving is wrong info. – Chacor 13:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIV, WP:TROP, WP:AGF-for peak sake! Storm05 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. – Chacor 13:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIV-Storm05 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A warning is not incivil. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia and be incivil, you will be blocked. – Chacor 13:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing incivil or assumption of bad faith in that. Don't throw around policy when you're in the wrong. – Chacor 13:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. I copied the preparations info over to the seasonal article, everything else is already there. – Chacor 13:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whats a major typhoon?

[edit]

Whats a Major Typhoon? - The term isnt used within the WPAC by any of the warning centers - Also the WMO do not meet in the spring for the PTS's, they meet during the winter months of November December January.Jason Rees (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed those points. Major typhoon is a relic of the original editors of this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Nida (2004)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article appears to be stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments:

  • Some captions have periods at the end and other do not. Make sure it's consistent.
  • There are two different date formats used in the references section. Again, stick to one format and make it consistent for all.
  • Some references in the prose have a space before them. Remove such spacing.
  • "A total of $1.3 million dollars (2004 USD) in damage occurred, and Nida left 31 fatalities." - Is the 2004 necessary? Just make it US$1.3...
    • Yes, 2004 USD is necessary. This is inserted into the text of tropical cyclone articles because there are various ways to inflate currency, and this way, you don't have to deal with updating damage in these articles annually. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Meteorological history" section, the pictures are placed in such as way that there is just one line of copy under the first photo (on the left). Fix this layout so that there is no orphaned copy under the picture.
  • President Chen should not be linked to Taiwan. It should link to Chen Shui-bian.
  • There is one sentence with four references. If the references refer to different parts of the sentence, move the references to what is being cited. If they are all quoting the same thing, then select the best one and remove the rest.

Summary: Overall, there are a few minor issues that need to be rectified. I will allow up to seven days for these issues to be addressed, before making any further decision.

I disagree with the (2004 USD) part. If the value was from a different year, this may be necessary, but the year is already in the title of the article, so this part is completely unnecessary. Other articles such as the 2010 Haiti earthquake do not do this. Please follow my suggestion. Otherwise, everything else looks good. -- S Masters (talk) 05:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. It's gone. It's covered by the text box in the top right corner anyway. I was just trying to follow project standards. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find these standards. The article for Hurricane Katrina, a former FA, does not follow your format. -- S Masters (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acctully for damage figures it is needed as there are several different currencie within the WPAC. Also Hurricane Katrina does follow the same format look in the first paragraph of Impact. Other cyclones do however the 2010 Hati Earthquake doesnt have any damage figures reported when i checked so obviously doesnt follow this format.Jason Rees (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments: As all the issues raised in the assessment have been resolved, I am satisfied that this article meets the requirements for a Good Article, and I am pleased to pass it as such. -- S Masters (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Nida_(2004)&oldid=1211147334"