Talk:Typhoon Pamela (1976)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs · count) 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• should the infobox use JMA data (10-min sustained) as well as JTWC data? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There is no JMA wind data for that time period :( --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"

While passing near Satawan in the Caroline Islands, Pamela produced winds of over 102 km/h (64 mph), which left damage but no deaths.[1]

From May 17 to 18,[1] at the Weather Service on Chuuk, Pamela dumped 14.59 in (371 mm) of rain.[6] This was due to the typhoon's slow movement. The rains resulted in mudslides that killed 10 people,[1] many of whom in a single burried house; several people were also injured.[3] Across the island, the typhoon also left heavy crop damage. Winds reached 91 km/h (56 km/h).[1]

Later, the typhoon produced tropical-storm force gusts and 10 in (250 mm) of rain on Saipan. Impact there was minor.[1]

" Any why to combine these three short paragraphs.

• • Well, I kept them separate due to them being three separate land areas. Does that work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• "Although Pamela was not as strong as Typhoon Karen in 1962" wikilink to 1962 PTS article please. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
  • MK! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
• Why is there no button bar at the bottom? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • There isn't one for the season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

While there a few issues with this article, there are minor enough for me to pass the article! YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}

Well-written:

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

(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:

(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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(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.

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

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

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

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

Reasonably-well meets these. :P YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}