Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Typhoon Emma (1959)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Typhoon Emma (1959) edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Couple months ago, I sent this article to FAC and had to withdraw it because the prose wasn't quite there yet. I figured I should take the advice given at the review and take the article here. It would be great to get some fixes relating to the FAC criteria (and an idea on what I should've done in hindsight) before I try FAC again later on. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 01:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 edit

Hi Nova Crystallis, I am sorry it has taken so long for someone to comment on this PR. My best advice is to go back to reviewing articles at FAC. Reviewing articles helps users understand the FAC criteria, what reviewers are looking for and how to interact with other editors during this process. Also, it builds goodwill among other FAC reviewers and helps get your article reviewed faster. I also suggest that you post a notice at WP:CYCLONE: editors there are very active and can give more technical thoughts than I can about the prose.

Below are some non-expert prose comments. I will assess this article as if it was an FAC. However, instead of fixing minor things in the article I will post all comments here so that you can see what needs to be fixed before nominating FACs. Comments below:

  • "was a strong typhoon that struck Okinawa" Is strong an official designation for a typhoon? If not, replace it with an official classification.
  • " and the depression received the name Emma." Who named it Emma?
  • "$219,586.50 (1959 USD)" -> US$219,586.50, per Wp:$. I would assume it's 1959 dollars so the year isn't necessary.
  • "A total of four people were killed during the storm," -> Four people were killed during the storm,
  • "35 mph (30 kn).[nb 3][1] " In the other instances, the note was placed after the reference, so flip the reference and the note for consistency.
  • "as Charlotte destroyed much of the crops earlier." -> crops earlier that year.
  • "$219,586.50 (1959 USD, equivalent to $1,949,457 in 2020)." -> Delete 1959 USD, it was established earlier in the article that these are USD and we don't need the 1959 date.
  • "(1960 USD, equivalent to $874,803 in 2020) " Removed 1960 USD per above

This is looking good on the prose front, but I still suggest finding a cyclone expert to ensure it meets the technical standards. Since this is a PR, you can ask specific editors to comment on this PR without accusations of canvassing. You can also advertise this PR in various Wikiprojects. If you have comments or questions for me, please ping. Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nova Crystallis: to ensure they saw the above and below comments. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Yeah I'm aware, just haven't had time to go through the article to fix those issues. Thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was just checking to ensure this review was not abandoned. Z1720 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by KN2731 edit

  • Pipelink sustained winds to Maximum sustained wind in the lead (and the MH)
  • For wind convert templates switch to |order=out to avoid showing knots. The way the winds are presented currently look quite odd.
  • Emma caused significant damage in Okinawa, in addition to that caused by Typhoon Charlotte in October – this sounds a little odd to me, maybe because of "in addition to that" is somewhat wordy. Perhaps change to compounding the effects of Typhoon Charlotte in October or similar.
  • Round 69 mi to 70 mi
  • What's the significance of the 130-knot estimated surface wind? It doesn't seem accurate nor representative of the storm's intensity.
  • Check for consistency in abbreviating knots (e.g. average speed of 35 kn looks like it shouldn't be abbreviated)
  • Add a comma after 960 hPa (28.3 inHg)
  • westerlies had begun to influence Emma – change to "began"
  • as it was southeast of Okinawa – change to "while" for some variation in word choice
  • The typhoon continued to increase in speed – specify forward speed (to distinguish from wind speed)
  • At 18:00 UTC of that day – "of" isn't needed
  • with surface winds of 120 km/h; 75 mph (65 kn) and moving at an average speed of 35 kn (65 km/h; 40 mph). This feels like a run-on sentence with multiple pieces of info tacked on using commas. Perhaps the sentence could be split/reworded?
  • surface winds dropped to 95 km/h; 60 mph (50 kn) – best track has 55 knots instead
  • west of the Midway Atoll – remove "the"
  • others reporting 47 vessels that were damaged or sunk – who's "others"?
  • floodwaters rose up to one meter (40 in) – think converting to ft would be better
  • Telephone service soon returned on the next day – "soon" is unnecessary as it's already implied by "the next day"

That should be it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nova Crystallis: to ensure that they saw the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comments, was planning on getting on fixing some of these later today. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nova Crystallis: Still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finally got done with my classes, so I'll be working on this this weekend (I swear). Nova Crystallis (Talk) 21:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Typhoon_Emma_(1959)/archive1&oldid=1061819359"