Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Kirogi (2000)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 00:58, 14 April 2010 [1].
Typhoon Kirogi (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Typhoon Kirogi, the first typhoon to threaten Tokyo since a storm in 1989, caused severe damage in parts of eastern Honshu and Hokkaido. Peaking as a Category 4 equivalent storm, Kirogi had weakened to minimal typhoon status before impacting Japan. Throughout Japan, rainfall in excess of one foot led to 15 billion yen ($140 million dollars) in damage as well as five fatalities. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you double check the MH as the ATCR produced by the HKO reports that Kirogi under went a Fuwijara with Kai-tak.Jason Rees (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just read the report on Kirogi in the HKO report and it does not mention any interaction between the two storms. You may be getting it mixed up with the Philippine mishap of Kai-tak being unnoticed while Kirogi was blamed for the damage. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. No dab links.
External link to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-6827217.html seems dead.Ucucha 21:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the dead link Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – No one seems to be reviewing this one, so I'll bite.
"On July 3, the storm underwent rapid intensification and attained Category 4 status on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale according to the JTWC the next day." For some reason, this struck me as an odd order to put the last bits in. How about "and attained Category 4 status on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale the next day, according to the JTWC."?- Is there a reason the full names of the abbreviations in the lead are only given in the body? It seems like they should first be introduced in the lead.
- PASAGA is still not given in full in the lead. Not sure if you want it all in the lead, however, since the whole name is so long. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I was trying to avoid. Hopefully it's not a problem. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PASAGA is still not given in full in the lead. Not sure if you want it all in the lead, however, since the whole name is so long. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comma after "The remnants of the storm persisted until July 10"?"The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses one-minute sustained winds." What are they used for? This is a confusing sentence until you realize two sentences later that it's apparently for measuring the peak of a storm. Consider adding a brief explanation (only a few words should be sufficient) in the above sentence."Forecasters warned that upwards of 250 mm rain could fall...". Seems to be missing "of" after the templated number.A few times during the article, there are cases where cites occur in the middle of a sentence. For a few of them, a comma could be added so the cite occurs after punctuation, and the prose will be unaffected.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've attented to all of your comments. Thanks for the review. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.