Hello! I'll have a look at this one. Review will magically appear below soon. Take care, Moswentotalky 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overalls
Overall, this is a magnificent article. It covers all the main aspects of the typhoon's existence, including its history, responses, damages etc. The sourcing is excellent, and I don't have any problems there. The prose is generally very clear, accessible to a layman but detailed enough to satisfy the enthusiast. I just have a few minor queries on the text, and then we're good to promote this to GA. Thanks for making my review so enjoyable to do! Keep up the very good work! Moswentotalky 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You're more than welcome. A few follow-up comments below. Because, you know, I don't want to make it too easy for you... Moswentotalky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I am pleased to announce that this is now a Good Article. Congratulations! Moswentotalky 09:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Lead
I think the opening sentence needs to mention the year, otherwise the "since 1979" doesn't mean much, and the dates in the next sentence mean even less!
Generally, the wikiproject does not do that and I feel it would be redundant since the year is in the title.
YEPacificHurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah the title! As a reviewer, I didn't think about the title! A more competent reader would see the year there, you're right. FWIW, other typhoon articles I've seen either link to the season article in the first sentence, or mention the year with the first instance of the date of appearance, but I won't pursue this for GA. Moswentotalky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"339 were hurt, 120 of which were serious." - the "of which" doesn't quite work here. Perhaps "and there were a further 339 casualties, 120 of which were serious"?
The "of which" suggestion still applies in your's as well :P Also, "causalities" are generally considered deaths. But I did find I way to revise it. Is it better now?
YEPacificHurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's a case of
WP:ENGVAR, but "339 were hurt, including 120 serious" doesn't work to my ears, because serious is an adjective that cannot stand alone. Either you would need "339 were hurt, including 120 seriously" or "339 were hurt, including 120 serious injuries".
"including two men and a girl which died after getting crushed by a falling cabinet." - This suggests all three were crushed by a cabinet, whereas the sources suggest it was just the girl. I don't see that the men need to be mentioned at all, unless you're discussing the cause of death.
"Two sisters were killed while a fireman died while trying to rescue someone." - the repetition of "while" makes this unclear. I would also add that the sisters were killed in a landslide for clarity.
Hello! I'll have a look at this one. Review will magically appear below soon. Take care, Moswentotalky 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Overalls
Overall, this is a magnificent article. It covers all the main aspects of the typhoon's existence, including its history, responses, damages etc. The sourcing is excellent, and I don't have any problems there. The prose is generally very clear, accessible to a layman but detailed enough to satisfy the enthusiast. I just have a few minor queries on the text, and then we're good to promote this to GA. Thanks for making my review so enjoyable to do! Keep up the very good work! Moswentotalky 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
You're more than welcome. A few follow-up comments below. Because, you know, I don't want to make it too easy for you... Moswentotalky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
I am pleased to announce that this is now a Good Article. Congratulations! Moswentotalky 09:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Lead
I think the opening sentence needs to mention the year, otherwise the "since 1979" doesn't mean much, and the dates in the next sentence mean even less!
Generally, the wikiproject does not do that and I feel it would be redundant since the year is in the title.
YEPacificHurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Ah the title! As a reviewer, I didn't think about the title! A more competent reader would see the year there, you're right. FWIW, other typhoon articles I've seen either link to the season article in the first sentence, or mention the year with the first instance of the date of appearance, but I won't pursue this for GA. Moswentotalky 16:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
"339 were hurt, 120 of which were serious." - the "of which" doesn't quite work here. Perhaps "and there were a further 339 casualties, 120 of which were serious"?
The "of which" suggestion still applies in your's as well :P Also, "causalities" are generally considered deaths. But I did find I way to revise it. Is it better now?
YEPacificHurricane 13:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Maybe it's a case of
WP:ENGVAR, but "339 were hurt, including 120 serious" doesn't work to my ears, because serious is an adjective that cannot stand alone. Either you would need "339 were hurt, including 120 seriously" or "339 were hurt, including 120 serious injuries".
"including two men and a girl which died after getting crushed by a falling cabinet." - This suggests all three were crushed by a cabinet, whereas the sources suggest it was just the girl. I don't see that the men need to be mentioned at all, unless you're discussing the cause of death.
"Two sisters were killed while a fireman died while trying to rescue someone." - the repetition of "while" makes this unclear. I would also add that the sisters were killed in a landslide for clarity.