Talk:Typhoon Shanshan (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Typhoon Shanshan (2006) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Typhoon Shanshan (2006) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Map of Korea This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a project to build and improve articles related to Korea. We invite you to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Talk page archives: Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Assessment

Great work on the rewrite. I've set it at B-class. --Coredesat 05:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm05 had some Taiwan impact... should we include it? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
His "Taiwan" impact was info on gusts on Iriomote, which is actually a Japanese island and covered as such. The only other thing I can see is flight cancellations, but those sources links have expired. On that note, while re-writing this article I noticed that a lot of impact had been copied verbatim from sources. This is in clear violation of copyright. Someone should check all his recent articles to ensure no copyvios slipped through. – Chacor 14:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Very nice article, look forward to GA at least. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I think before nomming it for GA I'd probably re-read it and see if it could be copyedited in places. – Chacor 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor copyedit

Anyone willing to help me go over the article and do a minor copyedit? I did parts of the Japan impact section in class, so may have made minor errors (spacing and punctuation, most likely). – Chacor 10:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I'll GA nom it now and check for minor errors while it waits its turn... – Chacor 12:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Congrats to the editors. Here's my review of the article.

  • Well-written - Pass - I found only one typo, which I fixed. Some parts might be a little confusing to non-specialist readers, though largely that is due to having four warning centers for one storm. Perhaps there could be a "Differences between warning centers" subsection to the storm history, which would allow the storm history to be more focused on the actual storm (and not what the warning centers said about the storm). Lede section is good, MOS is good, and technical terms are appropriately wiki-linked.
  • Factually accurate - Pass, though a source should be added indicating it passed over Iriomote and when the JTWC declared it extratropical
  • Broad - Weak Pass - The storm history could use some more focus on the storm, as mentioned above. For example, it is unclear when and why the storm turned to the north-northeast, when and why it started to weaken. Also, is there any impact in Taiwan or China? There are preps for there. Maybe the impact should just be one section without the sub-sections, as South Korea's section is rather short.
  • Non-POV - Pass
  • Stable - Pass
  • Images - Pass - While I'd love to see damage pics for every storms, some you just can't have. Good use of the satellite images.

All in all, good work, with only some small things needed to be done. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)