Wikipedia

Talk:Typhoon Goni (2015)

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page


edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Typhoon Goni (2015). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Typhoon Matmo (2014) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Goni (2015)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cloudchased (talk · contribs) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply


I'll be taking this one. Cloudchased (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Haven't written anything in a long time nor reviewed anything, but the prose strikes me as a bit subpar compared to what I've seen you write in the past, so this might be a longer review than usual.

  • "Developing in tandem with Typhoon Atsani" – could use a link for that (even if it's just a subsection)
  • "first passed" the post – bad pun aside, I'm not sure why there's a "first" here if it only appears to have done so once, unless you're referring to the storm passing by [x] landmass first – and even in that case it seems to be rather clunky prose.
  • "signal an intensifying" → "signalling..."
  • "Goni would evolve into" → "Goni evolved into"
  • "and moved through southwestern Japan, moving across Kyushu" – aren't these the same thing/redundant?
  • Last sentence of the first lede paragraph might be interpreted as meaning that all of those happened on the same day – and I don't think that's the case based on the track image.
  • "heavy rainfall caused flooding and power outages" – wait, did the rain cause power outages there? That's a new one.
  • How is that a new one? The Guam section says "with floods temporarily shutting down the Tumon power sub-station". The rains caused the rains, which caused the power outages; therefore, the rains caused the floods and the power outages. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "leading to deadly landslides, flooded fields, and thousands of destroyed houses" → "resulting in deadly landslides, flooding in fields, and the destruction of thousands of houses", or something along those lines
  • Drop the "in" in "and in".
  • "high wind gusts left power outages" – "left" doesn't seem to be a particularly appropriate verb
  • "while also damaging buildings" – is the "while also" necessary? Maybe "high wind gusts caused power outages, overturned vehicles, and damaged buildings"?
  • "Flooding rains" no no no no no no no
  • "flooded a zoo in eastern Russia" – the crops part is worth noting in the lede, but probably not the zoo part.

I'm actually going to stop at this point and ask if you would mind actually giving the article a quick copyedit to sort out the litany of obvious prose issues like the ones I've listed above, and I'll take another look at the article again then. Cloudchased (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

  • I've gone through and done a reasonably thorough copyedit to improve flow, tighten redundancies, fix a few ambiguities, and generally smooth things out. Overall, I don't think it was really all that bad... there were a handful of obvious corrections to be made, but it's important to remember that the GA criteria don't require brilliant prose; nominated articles just need to be clear, concise, and grammatically accurate. At FAC I might comment that the prose is a little less engaging or colorful than I personally like, but for our purposes, I'd say we've pretty much satisfied the first GA criterion after my latest edits. I just ran into one peculiarity that I wasn't able to figure out on my own: Floodwaters covered expressways and parts of Shanghai's Hongqiao Airport, delaying or halting 400 flights. Weather-related delays affected over 4,000 travelers in Shanghai's two airports. This would imply that each delayed plane was booked with less than 10 flyers each, which seems dubious, but the source is offline and I couldn't check to see what was going on. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you Julian. I removed the last sentence, when didn't mesh well with the previous one. The source said "over 4,000", so clearly with 400 flights affected, that number is much higher (and thus the 2nd sentence isn't needed). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "JMA upgraded Goni to a severe tropical storm, and further to typhoon status by the next day" – I think it reads better if you omit "further", imho.
  • "10 minute", "1 minute", "24 hour" – hyphenate!
  • "About two weeks after Typhoon Soudelor damaged houses in the Marianas Islands and caused an island-wide power outage on Saipan, Tropical Storm Goni affected the same island chain" – how about you reverse this sentence? (i.e., Goni affected the Marianas about two weeks after Soudelor damaged homes on the island chain)
  • "in the area" – which area?
  • I love en dashes, but is it necessary to use them instead of simply using parentheses (or a descriptor of PAGASA which would probably be shorter, in any case)?
  • "On the next day" – omit the first word
  • "An initial 8,426 people evacuated" → "Initially, 8,426 people evacuated"; "increasing drastically" → "drastically increasing"
  • "including 188 that were completely destroyed" → "of which 188 were completely destroyed"
  • Is there a reason you say the "Philippine Department of Social Welfare and Development" as opposed to merely the "Department of Social Welfare and Development"? Just wondering, since you didn't prepend other Philippine agencies as such (aside from PAGASA). In this case, since there don't seem to be agencies called the DSWD in other nations, it seems unnecessary.
  • "hospitals, nurseries" – missing an "and"
  • "average rain of two months" – slightly strange wording
  • You could reword the next sentence to "About 1,100 houses, mostly in Ussuriysk, were inundated, directly affecting 9,500 people" or something along those lines.
  • "More than 300 buildings sustained damage" – in Ussuriysk? Paragraph is a bit ambiguous about where it's talking about – start with "In Ussuriysk" or something when you get to talking about the city.
  • "and one bear drowned" – poor bear :(
  • "pf the typhoon" – typo

That's it. Cloudchased (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I took care of most of the above comments since at least a few of them were probably my fault. Just a few points left for the nominator to decide. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)Reply
Looks good. Passing. Cloudchased (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Typhoon Goni (2015). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Goni_(2015)&oldid=1211150779"