Talk:Tropical Storm Pulasan

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Pulasan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HurricaneEdgar (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: JCMLuis (talk · contribs) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. —JCMLuis 💬 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead

• Both paragraphs look too long and should be shortened. For the first paragraph I would focus less on the structure of the storm.
  • In the second paragraph, In China, the Yangjiazhai meteorological station in Fengxian District and the Nicheng Park meteorological station in Pudong District both recorded more than 300 mm (12 in) of rainfall within a six-hour period... could be shortened to In China, more than 300 mm (12 in) of rainfall was recorded in Fengxian and Pudong Districts within a six-hour period....

Meteorological history

• Satellite imagery indicates a broad, elongated area of circulation change indicates to indicated
• At 00:00 UTC on September 15, the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) designated the system as a low-pressure area, having previously identified it as a tropical depression. isn't it the other way around?
• Wikilink monsoon depression
• Pulasan was progressing north-northeastward along the northwestern edge of a mid-level subtropical high... change was progressing to progressed
• The JMA reported that Pulasan reached its peak intensity at 06:00 UTC, with 10-minute sustained winds of 85 km/h (50 mph) and a central pressure of 992 hPa (29.29 inHg), before ultimately peaking with 1-minute sustained winds of 110 km/h (70 mph). clarify that the JTWC made the 1-minute estimate.
• Wikilink outflow
• Split the second paragraph. I would start the third paragraph with when Pulasan reemerged over the East China Sea.

Preparations and impact

• Xinhua reported that the city evacuated 112,000 people and suspended some ferry and train services. the source used states how many ferry and train services were suspended.
• Heavy rains caused by Pulasan triggered widespread landslides and flooding in the Noto Peninsula, causing extensive damage which was exacerbated by the 2024 Noto earthquake which devastated the region in January. the causing extensive damage which was exacerbated by the 2024 Noto earthquake portion implies that the earthquake occurred after Pulasan. I would change it to something like causing extensive damage which exacerbated the effects of the 2024 Noto earthquake.
• ...and 6,500 households were left without power in the prefecture, according to Hokuriku Electric Power Company. add "the" before "Hokuriku Electric Power Company".
• In South Korea in the second sentence of the third paragraph is redundant.
• Flooding affected 83 sections of public roads, leading to 18 incidents of soil loss and a wall collapse, 30 private facilities and 27 houses. either use em dashes (—) around leading to 18 incidents of soil loss and a wall collapse or move that part to the end of the sentence.

References

• Ref layout:
  • Add |date= to refs 19, 34, and 36.
  • The date format should be consistent throughout the article.
  • Add translated title with |trans-title= to ref 41.
  • Refs 10 and 38 are duplicates. turns out they're not exact duplicates. The links are different, so I changed the bulletin number.

• Reliable sources: I recommend replacing refs 5, 11, and 28 with the best track from the JMA. Otherwise, all other sources seem reliable.

• Spotcheck:
  • Ref 11 states that Pulasan reached its peak intensity at 06:00 UTC as opposed to 00:00 UTC in the best track from the JMA.
  • Add the time when Pulasan reached its 1-minute peak winds from ref 12
  • Ref 15 doesn't say anything about "its circulation center strengthened with persistent convection"

• The article has no original research.

Other

• The article is stable.
• The article is focused.
• The images and their captions are relevant and in the public domain.
• Earwig's copyvio detector showed 13% similarity.
• The article covers all major aspects.
• The article is neutral.

I will finish my review whenever I get home today. —JCMLuis 💬 16:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

@HurricaneEdgar: Finished review. —JCMLuis 💬 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @HurricaneEdgar and @JCMLuis! I did the points in the review for convenience except:

• Shortening the lead, which district would be in "breaking historical records for each district"?
• Clarifying that the JTWC made the 1-minute estimate
• At 00:00 UTC on September 15...
• References (but I added dates to the 3 refs)

You may strike them our if they're good, ping me for any concerns. RFNirmala (talk) 02:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

About the lead, I forgot about that part. I have changed the suggestion so that each district is mentioned. —JCMLuis 💬 02:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JCMLuis! The issue has been addressed in the article. For reference 15, I moved the citation to clarify the information. HurricaneEdgar 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Passing. —JCMLuis 💬 17:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.