Talk:Tropical Storm Talas (2017)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by TheNuggeteer in topic GA Review
 | Tropical Storm Talas (2017) is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Pacific severe tropical storm in 2017 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
.png)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Talas (2017)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 11:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 17:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
This seems an interesting article and, on a cursory inspection, looks close to meeting the Good Article criteria already. I will start my review shortly. simongraham (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Simongraham Thank you for reviewing this article!
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗23:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)- @
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗It is a pleasure. simongraham (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @
Comments
edit- Overall, the standard of the article is high.
- It is of relatively short length, with 957 words of readable prose.
- The lead is also short at 141 words. It is currently two short paragraphs. I suggest combining them, which may help mobile readers.
- Authorship is 15.1% from the nominator and 44.1% from Typhoon2013, with contributions from 31 other editors.
- Although not a GA criteria, suggest adding ALT text to the images for accessibility.
- It is currently assessed as a C class article.
Assessment
editThe good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - I believe it is "sank" in "Rough seas sunk about 50 boats". Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - Please reword "With multiple tourists were stranded from an island off the coast of Guandong." Done If that works for you.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The writing is clear and appropriate.
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- The lead should be a summary of the main body. The second paragraph states "Damage was estimated at 2.52 trillion₫ (US$109 million)" which is not in the body. For example, this data could be included in the section Preparation and impact. Treating the lead as a summary also means that it does not need citation, as MOS:CITELEAD. Done Needs checking
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. "While other damages were estimated at 2.52 trillion₫ (US$109 million)." is a sentence fragment. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by this?
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- A sentence fragment, or incomplete sentence, is one that lacks a key part like the subject or verb. Please see the article on sentence clause structure for more information. I have copy edited so that it is a complete. Please feel free to amend. simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by this?
- Thank you. "While other damages were estimated at 2.52 trillion₫ (US$109 million)." is a sentence fragment. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please spell out numbers less than ten, such as "boat carrying 8 weather officials" as MOS:NUMERAL. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The lead should be a summary of the main body. The second paragraph states "Damage was estimated at 2.52 trillion₫ (US$109 million)" which is not in the body. For example, this data could be included in the section Preparation and impact. Treating the lead as a summary also means that it does not need citation, as MOS:CITELEAD.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - Please expand the bare references, such as "TỔNG HỢP THIỆT HẠI DO THIÊN TAI NĂM 2017" and "MEMBER REPORT [China]" Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - Please add trans to the non-English references. Done If that works for you.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - Suggest including diacritics in the titles like Viet Nam News as per WP:DIACRITICS.
- Some of the URLs are not original source and instead hosted by gwydir.demon.co.uk. For example, http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN31-PGTW_201707151500.htm is https://tgftp.nws.noaa.gov/data/raw/wd/wdpn31.pgtw..txt. The former is now a dead link. Please check the URLs and change as necessary. Done If that works for you, but I don't think the change is necessary.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please mark the dead links (such as The Gulf Today original article) as such.
Not done What do you mean? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- This has been done. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- A reference section is included, with sources listed.
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- All references are online, and are either data from government weather agencies or contemporary news articles. The latter are subject to WP:NEWSORG. The sites seem reliable within the context. For example, WP:RSP notes that The Straits Times "is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage". Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- All references are online, and are either data from government weather agencies or contemporary news articles. The latter are subject to WP:NEWSORG. The sites seem reliable within the context. For example, WP:RSP notes that The Straits Times "is generally reliable so long as the Singapore government is not involved in its coverage".
- it contains no original research;
- There are a number of statements in the lead that are not repeated in the body, including that the storm was "the fourth named storm of the 2017 Pacific typhoon season". Please add a relevant section to the body (more detail below). Not done The phrase you said is not mentioned in the lead.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- The third sentence states, "The depression intensified into the fourth named storm of the 2017 Pacific typhoon season during July 15." simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In Tropical Storm Kai-tak, Hurricanehink (who is really specialized in this topic) never mentioned this, this should probably be ignored?
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗13:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- I fear this may be in contravention of WP:V, which states that, "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Is there a reliable source for this information? This should be included in the text, I suggest at a relevant point in the body rather than a new section. simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly couldn't find information for this outside Wikipedia, the only way is to combine multiple sources, or I could just remove it.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗04:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly couldn't find information for this outside Wikipedia, the only way is to combine multiple sources, or I could just remove it.
- I fear this may be in contravention of WP:V, which states that, "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Is there a reliable source for this information? This should be included in the text, I suggest at a relevant point in the body rather than a new section. simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- In Tropical Storm Kai-tak, Hurricanehink (who is really specialized in this topic) never mentioned this, this should probably be ignored?
- The third sentence states, "The depression intensified into the fourth named storm of the 2017 Pacific typhoon season during July 15." simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- All relevant statements in the body have inline citations. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- There are a number of statements in the lead that are not repeated in the body, including that the storm was "the fourth named storm of the 2017 Pacific typhoon season". Please add a relevant section to the body (more detail below).
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 11.5% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is very unlikely. The greatest overlap is with the cited page on watchers.com, and involves dates, times and similar information. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Earwig gives a 11.5% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is very unlikely. The greatest overlap is with the cited page on watchers.com, and involves dates, times and similar information.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- Suggest adding an initial paragraph on the context and background. Areas to consider are general facts about Vietnamese typhoons and the 2017 season, maybe on previous storms and the impact this made on monitoring and preparations if relevant (as mentioned above). Not done Where?
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Looking at other GA articles in the discipline, this seems to be embedded in the text rather than a separate introductory paragraph or section. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- In Tropical Storm Kai-tak, I don't see something like that.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗13:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- I see that. Instead, in this article there is a paragraph explaining that they encouraged tree-planting after the storm and there is mention of the storm that followed. Is there anything comparable? simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- You mean long-term effects?
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗04:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- You mean long-term effects?
- I see that. Instead, in this article there is a paragraph explaining that they encouraged tree-planting after the storm and there is mention of the storm that followed. Is there anything comparable? simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- In Tropical Storm Kai-tak, I don't see something like that.
- Looking at other GA articles in the discipline, this seems to be embedded in the text rather than a separate introductory paragraph or section. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The section on Preparations and impact lacks information on the preparations in Vietnam. Done I can't see that much preparations in Vietnam.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- The section begins "On July 15, Meteorologists expected heavy rainfall from the storm." Is there any detail on what they did what that information? Was there any preparatory work? simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Articles you want to look at could include Trinh Pattiaratchi & Bui, 2020.[[1]] Not done I don't think there is need for this source.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- I feel that it would be good to include additional English-language non-primary sources following WP:PSTS and WP:NOENG. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done Added.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗01:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I feel that it would be good to include additional English-language non-primary sources following WP:PSTS and WP:NOENG. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest adding an initial paragraph on the context and background. Areas to consider are general facts about Vietnamese typhoons and the 2017 season, maybe on previous storms and the impact this made on monitoring and preparations if relevant (as mentioned above).
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- The article has good information on the storm's meteorological history. Done You could probably be more specific to the entire article.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article has good information on the storm's meteorological history.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The article seems generally balanced, with the impact in China and Vietnam covered, although there could be more information on the Chinese experience. Not done All the information is already covered, with Hainan being the only part in China to be affected, hence the header.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Thank you. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Suggest adding some information from the body on this in the lead. simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Many of the information sources are from organisations in other parts of the world. Was there any impact more broadly? For example, I believe there is information on the impact in Thailand in a case study by Chulalongkorn University named Real-time flood forecasting using ECMWF ensemble precipitation forecast in the Upper Nan river basin, Thailand.[[2]] You want me to add more local sources?
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Yes please. Relevant secondary sources if possible. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗13:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Excellent work. I suggest explicitly mentioning Thailand in the body so that it is clear. I also see that the infobox lists impacts in Laos and Myanmar too. Although Laos is mentioned in the body, there is nothing on the impact on these countries. Is there any information on them too? simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗04:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think so.
- Excellent work. I suggest explicitly mentioning Thailand in the body so that it is clear. I also see that the infobox lists impacts in Laos and Myanmar too. Although Laos is mentioned in the body, there is nothing on the impact on these countries. Is there any information on them too? simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes please. Relevant secondary sources if possible. simongraham (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The article seems generally balanced, with the impact in China and Vietnam covered, although there could be more information on the Chinese experience.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The images have appropriate PD tags. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The images have appropriate PD tags.
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- The images are appropriate. Done
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The images are appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
@TheNuggeteer: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @simongraham I'm not quite sure what to do here.. I've been assigned to review this page via the new WP:GARC system but hadn't created a review page because I hadn't finished writing one up yet. I didn't consider that the nomination would stay listed unless I created a page. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the coordinator instructions page, it looks like the GARC coordinator is supposed to remove the article from the nominations pool (relevant instructions). Pinging the other coordinators @GMH Melbourne and @PCN02WPS for advice (also @TheNuggeteer who's both the coordinator and the nominator here). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @F4U I was not aware of the GARC system but am very happy for you to review one of my GAN if that helps. simongraham (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. Is there any specific article of similar length you'd like me to review? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @F4U Both Benin Air Force and Ndiadiane Ndiaye are probably about the same length so please feel free to look at either. I look forward to working with you. simongraham (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me. Is there any specific article of similar length you'd like me to review? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- @F4U I was not aware of the GARC system but am very happy for you to review one of my GAN if that helps. simongraham (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the coordinator instructions page, it looks like the GARC coordinator is supposed to remove the article from the nominations pool (relevant instructions). Pinging the other coordinators @GMH Melbourne and @PCN02WPS for advice (also @TheNuggeteer who's both the coordinator and the nominator here). ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 21:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Don't know what's the problem with ref 17, the source is marked dead and has a proper archive, with a link to the original source.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗00:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - I don't see "the fourth named storm" in the lead.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗00:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC) - @Simongraham: Replied to everything.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗07:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- Replied to your replies.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗13:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)- @
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗Thank you. This is excellent work. simongraham (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)- @Simongraham Responded to the comments.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗09:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Simongraham Responded to the comments.
- @
- Replied to your replies.
To do
editI didn't want to chime into the GA nomination, but make sure units are rounded per WP:MOSNUM. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)