Talk:Tropical Storm Pakhar (2017)

Todo

Writing doesn't seem horrible, but Philippines impact probably should have been added before this article was made. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, after some tweaks, it's now C class worthy I think. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 13:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: I guess only thing left is just the top section. Everything else seems fine unless we find new info and I'll keep track on the casualties + damages. Thanks so much YE for your help, and this should definitely be nominated for GA in the near-future. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Move

Should this article move to "Severe Tropical Storm Pakhar (2017)"? --AndyAndyAndyAlbert (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Pakhar (2017)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hylian Auree (talk · contribs) 09:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I will be reviewing this article in the coming days. Before I leave a more extensive assessment of the text, I notice there is an unclear citation style template at the top of the page, so I will start by looking at that:

• Inconsistent listing of publishers: be consistent in whether the publishing websites or the full publisher names are used (the latter is preferred). For example, compare ref 1 (noaa.gov) to ref 4 (Japan Meteorological Agency).
• Refs 1, 2, 3, 35, 39, and 50 are insufficiently formatted. Please list the publishers of these works and include more descriptive titles. Foreign language sources should indicate which language they are in. Moreover, webcitation is not a publisher; it is merely the website hosting the source.
• Newspaper names should be italicized, for example by using the newspaper or work parameter instead of the publisher parameter. Refs 7, 26, 28, 36, 38, 41, 46, 47, and 51 are all articles from newspapers.
• Be consistent in whether access-dates are provided for the online sources or not (compare refs 7, 24–43, 45–49, and 51 to the rest of the references).
• Please spell out at least the first occasions of abbreviations for agencies, i.e. NDRRMC. Moreover, SCMP should be written out in full as the South China Morning Post newspaper, as per ref 44. Auree ^★★ 09:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

N.B. I am relatively strict in my assessment of the sources. Focus should be on finding a consistent way to note publishers, noting foreign language sources where needed, and listing publishers for all sources. Auree ^★★ 09:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Update - I am failing the article given that the above review has been open for nearly a month and there have been no efforts at addressing the comments. Auree ^★★ 18:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)