Talk:Typhoon Babs (1998)
 | Typhoon Babs (1998) 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 10, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png)
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Todo edit
I rated this as a start, though it needs a lot of work. The intro makes little sense and needs more info, the infobox needs a picture and is incorrect (Babs peaked at 155), a longer storm history is needed, and the impact should be greatly expanded upon. Hurricanehink 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Unisys best track data showed Babs at Category 5 status. Storm05 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- That was operationally. In the official JTWC best track, Babs was a Category 4, albeit a strong one. Still more info is needed in the impact. Hurricanehink 16:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- The Unisys best track data showed Babs at Category 5 status. Storm05 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Picture edit
I found two picture links. Which should go in the infobox? This, which shows it near its Philippine landfall, or this, which shows a broader view and a more impressive structure? I personally vote for #2. Hurricanehink 19:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, why not both? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Babs (1998)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Just dropping a note that I'll be reviewing this article later today. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
All in all an excellent article as always, Hink. I have one minor issue to bring up. In the "Elsewhere" section, toward the end of the first paragraph, you seem to have been cut-off in the middle of a thought and forgot to finish it: Beaches were wh Precipitation from the typhoon fell over three days...
. Once this is addressed I'll be happy to pass the article.
Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good now, happily passing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)