Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Longwang
- The following discussion 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 Allen3 talk 11:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Typhoon Longwang
[edit]- ... that Typhoon Longwang was the deadliest tropical cyclone to impact China during the 2005 Pacific typhoon season?
5x expanded by Cyclonebiskit (talk). Self nominated at 15:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC).
-
- Close praphrasing - "Situated within a region of low wind shear, favorable divergence, and increasing 850 mb vorticity" in article compared to "An upper-level analysis indicates the LLCC remains in an environment 'of low vertical wind shear, favorable divergence, and increasing 850-mb vorticity."
- "The arch gate of the Hualien Martyrs Shrine collapsed amid strong winds." in article compared to " A cargo ship ran aground off Hualien harbour and the arch gate of the Hualien Martyrs Shrine was knocked down by the strong winds.".
- "Once at typhoon status, the storm resumed a more westerly track as a second ridge extending from eastern Asia became the dominant steering factor." in article compared to "The ridge extending from eastern Asia became the primary controlling mechanism, and Typhoon Longwang, following the contours of this ridge, returned to its original west to west-northwesterly heading late on 27 September."
- "Remaining over water for less than 12 hours, the typhoon made its second and final landfall in Fujian Province late on October 2." in article compared to "Weakening continued and Longwang made its final landfall in Fujian Province, China, as a minimal typhoon..."
- I don't really see what's wrong about the highlighted phrasing. Sure it's close to what's in the source, but that's by virtue of it being proper phrasing for the content. It's only a portion of the sentence that matches up, which happens all the time, rather than the full sentence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even part of a sentence being close to a source is close paraphrasing. It doesn't need to be an entire sentence. SL93 (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did a bit of rejiggering where possible, but the "landfall" and "ridge" lines are rather basic IMO and don't constitute plagiarism. It would be rather cumbersome to word them any other way. Juliancolton (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for doing what you could as well as giving a second opinion. This can be promoted. SL93 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks JC! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- I did a bit of rejiggering where possible, but the "landfall" and "ridge" lines are rather basic IMO and don't constitute plagiarism. It would be rather cumbersome to word them any other way. Juliancolton (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
- Even part of a sentence being close to a source is close paraphrasing. It doesn't need to be an entire sentence. SL93 (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
