1901 Pacific typhoon season 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. Review: November 5, 2016. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑importance 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. 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).

This review is transcluded from Talk:1901 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Dingo ( talk · contribs) 10:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Taking, will review soon. —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your interest in this article @ Yellow Dingo:! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:27, 2 November 2016 (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, spelling, and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR): d ( copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

• "9 were" → "nine were" per MOS:SPELL09 — Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "it soon after dissipated" → "it soon dissipated"

• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• Link "Okinawa"

• Linked. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "On the next day while" → "On the next day, while"

• I clarified the date and added the comma. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "two boats, where they were rescued after two days" - doesn't really make sense. Maybe something like this; "two boats, from which, after two days, they were rescued."

• How about "and after two days they were rescued"? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "continued to intensity until" → I guess you mean "intensify"

• Yep, oops! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "China near" → "China, near"

• Done (and split the sentence). ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "land, dissipating" → "land, before dissipating"

• Changed to " It rapidly weakened and dissipated over land." ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "provided opportunity" → "provided an opportunity"

• Added. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "De Witte" - italics
• Done. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply
• "Onshore mainland China" → On onshore mainland China"

• I disagree with that. "Onshore" is already a preposition, so adding another preposition "on" is redundant. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

• "northeast, last" → "northeast and was last"

• Added. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Nice article with a few minor fixes needed. Putting on hold. Also, is there any reason why the two monthly sections aren't equal in length (the first one is seven months whilst the second one is five months). —  Yellow Dingo  (talk)

Thank you! As for the sections, there were barely any storms in the first seven months of the year, so I opted to have the sections be similar in length, even if the durations weren't. I can change it if you prefer. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Ok nice job, I'm happy to pass this now. Congrats! —  Yellow Dingo  (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Comment: Could you possibly add more detail to the De Witte Typhoon section? It seems pretty short. Jdcomix ( talk) 13:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

I wish! I spent a lot of time researching that storm, since it was so strong, but there wasn't too much info back in 1901, at least not readily available to myself. One day, I'll bet historians will write papers about that storm, since it was apparently one of the strongest recorded so far back in time in that part of the world, but until then, this is all I could find. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply

Okay, thanks anyway :) Jdcomix ( talk) 16:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply