Talk:Typhoon Soudelor (2003)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll review this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Lead, "It was the sixth named storm by the Japan Meteorological Agency, as well as the third typhoon." Of the season?
 * Oops, added! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Preparations, "By June 16, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration" You've already linked and given the acronym for this a couple of paragraphs previously. Why not use the acronym here?
 * Alright. Originally I didn't because I wanted to re-establish it in the body of the article, but that works. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Preparations, first paragraph - What do these various storm signals mean in laymans terms?
 * Added. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Preparations, first paragraph - Why not link these places? Most of them are not easily recognizable to the average person who doesn't live in this area...
 * Better yet, I cut down. It's all in the same general area. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact and aftermath, "300 mm (12 in)", etc. Isn't centimeters to inches a more normal comparison?
 * Typically in the project, we use mm. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact and aftermath, "Throughout the country, the storm damaged or destroyed 251 houses, of which 94 were destroyed." Can we reword to get rid of the redundant "destroyed"? Perhaps just ..."the storm damaged 251 horses, of which 94 were completely destroyed" or similar?
 * Changed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact and aftermath, "between Hsitou and Luku." Links?
 * Neither have articles :( --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact and aftermath, " ¥77.9 million (2003 JPY), $655,000 2003 USD)" Mismatched parentheses, but I'm not sure where the second opening one is supposed to be.
 * Good catch, fixed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact and aftermath, "mostly due to fallen objects." fallen or falling? In other words, did falling objects land on people, causing injury, or did people hurt themselves on already fallen objects, such as by crashing a car into them?
 * Fixed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Impact and aftermath, "rainfall at Hallasan on Jeju Province" - on Jeju or in Jeju?
 * I guess it'd be in, or it'd be "on Jeju island" (since it's an island). I just changed to "in". --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall nice, but there are a few prose niggles, listed above. For now, I am placing the article on hold, until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review! I hope you didn't mind the meteorological dribble :P --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, every time I read these articles I'm thankful I live in an area that only gets some of the leftover from one of these storms, and even that only occasionally! I made a couple more tweaks, but overall it looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Thanks for the quick replies, Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You and me both. Granted, Sandy was bad here, but it was a once per generational storm. Thanks again for the review! If you ever need a reviewer, lemme know. :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall nice, but there are a few prose niggles, listed above. For now, I am placing the article on hold, until these can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for the review! I hope you didn't mind the meteorological dribble :P --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL, every time I read these articles I'm thankful I live in an area that only gets some of the leftover from one of these storms, and even that only occasionally! I made a couple more tweaks, but overall it looks good, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Thanks for the quick replies, Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You and me both. Granted, Sandy was bad here, but it was a once per generational storm. Thanks again for the review! If you ever need a reviewer, lemme know. :) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)