Talk:Typhoon Mike

Todo

Better intro, more impact, better-sized pic in infobox. Jdorje 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, thats about the suckiest pic we could ever have. I'll gladly change it. Cyclone1 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

MUCH better! you can see the typhoon now!

• From this

  

• To this—

  

  Cyclone1 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Todo (2017)

• Go through LN (63 articles).
• RW stuff
• Google Scholar

Yea, this is gonna take a while... YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 08:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Typhoon Mike

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Typhoon Mike's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UPI2":

• From Typhoon Ike: "Typhoon unleashes rains on southern islands". United Press International. October 22, 1981 – via LexisNexis. (subscription required)
• From Typhoon Nina (1987): "Typhoon Nina bound for central Philippines". United Press International. November 23, 1987.  – via Lexis Nexis (subscription required)
• From Typhoon Ruby (1988): "Typhoon spawns twister in Philippines". United Press International. October 23, 1988. – via Lexis Nexis (subscription required)
• From Typhoon Bess (1982): "International News". United Press International. August 2, 1982.
• From Typhoon Irma (1981): "International News". United Press International. November 23, 1981.
• From Typhoon Betty (1987): "Tropical Typhoon Hal Rakes Northern Philippines Killing Three". United Press International. August 12, 1987.
• From Typhoon June (1984): "Tropical storm kills 7, injures 127". United Press International. August 29, 1984.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Mike/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

GA criteria

Well-written:

With the issues below having been addressed, the article satisfies the MOS policies for grammar, as well as general structure and layout. To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a wealth of reputable sources, and does not appear to contain original research or unverifiable claims. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article covers all encyclopedically relevant aspects of its topic. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article maintains a neutral approach to its subject. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article does not seem to have undergone any edit warring in the past year, according to a checkup of the past 100-odd revisions. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The three images used in the article are public domain, and each serves a relevant purpose illustrating the article. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Comments

• Meteorological history, paragraph 3: "Land interaction took toll on the typhoon on November 12 as cloud tops temperatures surrounding the eye..." Is "cloud tops" supposed to be plural in that statement, as presented? Just want to make sure.
  • • Should be singular.
  • Also, "...took a toll...", right? Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've seen it worded like that on a regular enough basis for it to be assumed as a standard. Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Preparations:
  • "Maximum storm alerts were raised in five islands of the central Philippines and lower warnings in the southern tip of Luzon island, where Manila is located, he said." Who said?
    • Just an old edit window c/p from a news article that never got axed. Re-wrote the entire sentence. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • "Authorities advised coastal residences to move to higher ground" Isn't that supposed to be residents?
    • Yes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Impact:
  • Caroline Islands: "Damage on Paula totaled $2 million..." I think that's supposed to be Palau, but I'm having trouble navigating the maze of citations and body text, so I'm posting it here.
    • Correct. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Philippines:
    • Paragraph 2: "Eighty-eight ships sunk at the Cebu City harbor, the most ships ever sunk at the Cebu City harbor". Since we already know by the first half that this sentence is about what happened at Cebu City harbor, wouldn't it suffice to say "the harbor" in the second half?
      • Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Paragraph 3:
      • Note 1: "Offshore, seventeen people, including six Americans, were rescued on an oil rig, but sixty-eight other workers were evacuated." Given the text surrounding this sentence, wouldn't it make more sense to say, "Offshore, seventeen people, including six Americans, were rescued on an oil rig, and sixty-eight workers were evacuated"?
        • Yes.YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Note 2: "Another ship called the Iligan Flores was missing off the coast of Mindanao but no reports about the fate of the passengers and crew." I think "...but no reports were made about the fate..." would be more grammatically correct.
      • Added a "there were". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• Aftermath:
  • Paragraph 1: "Philippines navy vessels being were utilized..." Oughtn't the "s" in "Philippines" to be dropped in this context? Also, the whole "being were..." thing.
    • I think you're right, and dropped "being". YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 2: "Typhoon Mike's damage to the infrastructure to Cebu..." Infrastructure to, or infrastructure of?
    • "Of" works better here probs. Switched. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Paragraph 4: "PAGASA also retired the name Ruping and was replaced with Ritang..." Replaced it with Ritang, right? Says the 21st century, "I'm 18 and I like it!" (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Wilhelmina Will: any update on this? Thanks in advance. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I've been caught up the past fortnight. Anyways, I thank you for these adjustments; it looks like a go-for now! To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The article has achieved GA status. I only hope it was worth the wait. Congratulations! To the point that the words have become unintelligible. (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A-class review

• Mention which storm in 1981 in the first sentence
  • Sure. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Oh, funny seeing this sentence after Typhoon Ike. You kinda did it wrong here. Irma redirects to 1966 PTS. Also, there's no mention of 1990 now. Is there any better way of wording that?? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Honestly I re-added the year, and just left it as is.
• "Forming from an area of persistent convection over the Caroline Islands, Mike was first designated on November 7, 1990 and moved generally westward' - infobox says 11/5. The MH says the 6th. Please fix (go with JMA formation date)
  • Fixed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• "Late on November 10, the typhoon reached its maximum intensity" - which was?
  • I have a longtime policy of avoiding the double agency thing so I'm gonna sit on this. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, well I have a longtime policy of including the maximum sustained winds, especially the JMA's (since they are the RSMC, after all). So... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • JMA wasn't even an RMSC then though. Out of NPOV, I've always written "X was upgraded to Y by Z" regardless if Z was the JTWC or JMA. Still, I sneaked in the JMA's peak intensity in there. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
        • To be fair, JMA became an RSMC in 1988 - [1] - thanks for adding though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Typhoon Mike turned west-northwest, avoiding land interaction with Vietnam." - the track looks like it went northwest.
  • It went from WNW to NNW so clearing that up. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• "After striking the Philippines, the typhoon brought widespread damage and was considered the worst typhoon to hit the country since Typhoon Ike in 1984." - technically, wouldn't the typhoon cause damage "while" striking the Philippines, and not "after"?
  • Yes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• " resulting in 1,110,020 people homeless" - poor grammar
  • Better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Fix the infobox death toll
  • Oh, good call. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• "At the time, Mike was the costliest tropical cyclone listed in the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council's database, and as of 2014, is the seventh costliest typhoon to strike the country since independence in 1947." - Why as of 2014? What about as of now?
  • At the time of me GANing this, that was the newest source available. I'll look into this later. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
    • It's the newest I can find, although it doesn't match up with Template:Costliest Philippine typhoons very well. I'll leave this as is and eventually get around to fixing the template. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• " At 15:03 UTC on November 6" - really at that exact time? Normally they're on the hour.
  • Apparently so and honestly given that there was radar coverage in the area, it is not that much of a shock. 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • You're right, nothing to get into a hissy fit about. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• You mention the landfall for Cebu, but not Leyte or anywhere else
  • Probably because the ATCR never mentioned any other landfall. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • And no other source did either? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Not that I can find. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• Check ref 16
  • Better? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Rainfall peaked at 276.1 mm (10.87 in) at the port of Cebu City; this was the fourth highest total ever observed by a tropical cyclone in Cebu City while a storm surge of 3 to 4 m (9.8 to 13.1 ft) was reported." - split off the surge bit into its own sentence
  • Sure. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "including six due to drownings, in the Leyte province" - rm comma
  • Ended up re-doing that sentence anyways. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• " including three that drowned in 1.6 m (5.2 ft) waters." - floodwaters? Surf? Surge flooding?
  • The first. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "However, the typhoon's inner core spared Manila's metropolitan area." - I don't get the "however"
  • Removed. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "A total of 630,885 homes were damaged and 222,026 houses were destroyed,[40] including 160 from a tornado" - for the tornado bit, was this the same tornado as mentioned in the previous paragraph? If so, move that bit up there.
  • Done. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "the storm was responsible for the lives of 68 individuals in the Central Vietnamese province of Nghệ Tĩnh. Many fishing boats also sunk" - did they die from the shipwrecks? If so, don't put that in as an afterthought.
  • No. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "On November 28, the Republic of Palau was declared a disaster area." - anything else with that? Any rebuilding?
  • Not finding anything else with regards to this. Most Google Scholar results only passively mention the storm, and direct google search isn't any more helpful really. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "Former Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos offered $3.6 million for victims of the typhoon.[54] However, she only ended up writing a check of $125,000 and even that check bounced." - I'm not sure that's necessary. It's odd, it's interesting, but ultimately, is it worth including just to shame her for check bouncing?
  • Considering that that she ended up contributing $0 instead of $3.6 million, I'd say yes. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • True, it's one of those odd bits of history, good call keeping it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
• "The defense secretary ordered 150 tents to be lifted to five affected cities." - "lifted"?
  • Airlifted. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• "France loaned the country $36 million that was expected to be paid back within three decades." - odd question, but since we're only one year away from 3 decades passing, was there any update?
  • Can't find anything. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
• The relief paragraph lists a lot of numbers. Is there any way to make the prose stronger there?
  • Outside of removing some of the numbers, not sure. I did some light copyediting though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

You did a good job on this article YE. It shouldn't take much to make it A-class. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Alright, I at least replied to everything. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Much better! Great work what you've done already. I just have three other items that I think should be addressed, let me know if they're too arduous/burdensome. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)