Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Namu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources

[edit]
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-87-42_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-86-499_en.htm
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-86-235_en.htm

I have added those links to the article. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://rebekah1234.tripod.com/id8.html
http://www.sprep.org/att/IRC/eCOPIES/Countries/Solomon_Islands/43.pdf Solomon Islands Country Environmental Analysis page 40]
UNDRO reports 1-8
IMF Emergency Assistance Related to Natural Disasters and Postconflict Situations
Natural disasters in the Solomon Islands
[1]

[1]

References

  1. ^ "Solomon Islands begins cleanup of Typhoon Namu destruction". Observer-Reporter. Pennsylvania, United States. May 23, 1986. Retrieved July 21, 2013.

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Namu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind Hurricanehink that this is my GAN as well even though i do not feel that the article was not ready for a GAN as not enough research to cover the major aspects has been done. This includes the damage total which keeps getting messed around with and the fact that one of the reports is duplicated several times and contains a better estimate of the death toll than many of the

While you did do the MH and nobody own's articles, as of this writing, I officially nominated this GAN, so this is my GAN. No, plenty of research had been done. It's slightly longer than the 2 SPAC FA's. While Namu is more important than both the 2 others FA, this is GAN not FAC, so the article does not have to be as comprehensive as a FAC. It is 29 kb, which in my opinion is plentifully given that SPAC storms as a whole are non-notable (it only affected 170,000 people after all). This is the second longest SPAC storm article that I know off (after Evan, which was much costlier and extremely recent). Wikipedia articles are not expected to include everything, it is suppose to just be summary. If you think this is short, how long do you expect it to be? And, if it is short, why don't you be bold and expand it if you consider it "your GAN". And no, the damage total is not being messed around, we don't include economical losses for articles in any basin. While I am somewhat open to using EMDAT damage total, it's 20 million, but even that seems a bit low; I think it is one of those instances where EMDAT damage total is a bit low. And the death total is fine IMO, I have seen plenty of sources that go with 150 deaths. We could arguably use EMDAT which goes with 101 deaths, but given the info on exactly how they died, more than 101 people died during the storm. It's not like people come back to life after all :P YE Pacific Hurricane 04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
YE the best death toll i could come up using just what is located within the article was 62, even though you could use the details in reference 1 to expand out how many died and in what situation. I have my doubts about if 150 is right since this by the same authors as ref 1 but not used in the article, researched all of the deaths and came up with a death toll of about 111. I dont expect miracles with the length of the article and do not care about how many kb it is but i do expect to be able to justify the death toll and that takes a lot more research and yes i will help expand it more as long as i am treated with a little bit of respect and not like a piece of chewing gum on the sole of your foot.Jason Rees (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added details from reference 1 and tweaked the death toll. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(

All in all, pretty good. Just some small issues that can be fixed easily. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the review as always Hink :D YE Pacific Hurricane
    • I strongly feel that there is still a lot out there that could be added to this article, for example These three journals contain a lot of information that need to be used to expand the article. I am trying to rewrite the article and am grateful to Hurricanehink for not failing this GAN yet but my time is limited at the minute so thus i feel it is time for this article to be failed.Jason Rees (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GA's don't have to include everything, it's is suppose to be a summary. Anyway, this GAN has turned a bit dramatic, and I'd rather worry about other articles than this right now. Therefore, I am withdrawing this GAN. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SI importance

[edit]

Does anyone know of a way to make the SI importance to be Top?Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's possible. Sorry JR. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its been added in now.Jason Rees (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of action

[edit]

As time and my motivation allows, I am going to try and sort this article out in order to try and tell the story of Namu a lot clearer than the article does presently. My working suspicion is that each of the nine provinces with the exception of Temotu will deserve a paragraph each and one for the overall impact. The aftermath section will also be about 3-4 paragraphs long. If anyone has any thoughts on the structure let me know, I am very keen to hear in particular to hear from @Yellow Evan and Hurricanehink:.Jason Rees (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An 11 month late reply (I was looking at my older articles and stumbled across this), but knowing you, you'll eventually come back to this, it's probably a good idea, but I assume in addition to the nine paragraphs about impact you mentioned above, you'd also keep the paragraphs with the TC warnings and the one with rain/wind totals. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Namu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]