Talk:Typhoon Krovanh (2003)

Typhoon Krovanh (2003) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Typhoon Krovanh (2003) is part of the 2003 Pacific typhoon season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 3, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
October 27, 2014	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Krovanh (2003)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review, and should have my full comments up later today. Dana boomer (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~China, "cautioning the island against" I highly doubt they cautioned the island itself. Instead, perhaps they cautioned the residents of the island?~~

Fixed to your suggestion.

~~China, "140,000 hectares" Conversion, please.~~

Fixed Secret ^account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere, "Resulting damage in the Philippines was of severe extent, though damage reports remain unclear." It's 11 years later, are things still unclear? If so, something along the lines of "full damage reports were never released" or something similar, to show we're not still waiting for them. Also, the first clause of this sentence needs to be reworked - it's ungrammatical.

Fixed I think. Secret ^account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do we have any estimates of the monetary amount of damages in the Philippines and Vietnam?~~

Added for Philippines, nothing on Vietnam. Secret ^account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
~~What makes Ref #3 (Australiansevereweather.com) a reliable source?~~
It's Gary Padgett. He's used in several FA's, and that he's cited by NOAA. See User:Ealdgyth/FAC_cheatsheet#Weather. Secret ^account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Refs #4, 13 "Agence France Pesse" Should this be "Presse"?~~

Fixed Secret ^account 16:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Refs #4, 5, 6, etc. What are these? Newspapers, online articles, what?

They are news agency press releases, source is mentioned as agency.

Right, but how would a reader go about verifying these sources? What were you looking at when you found them? A website? A newspaper?

A newspaper archive in LexisNexis. Secret ^account 00:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
A few prose and referencing issues, so I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for them to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One question remaining on references. Dana boomer (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it would be best to make it clear that the references questioned above were accessed through LN, but I don't think it's a huge deal for GA. Passing the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]