Talk:1957 Pacific typhoon season

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

1957 Pacific typhoon season has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

1957 Pacific typhoon season was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2006-08-06

Contents 1 Todo 2 pronouns 3 Headings 4 Track maps 5 GA nomination status 6 Good Article nomination has failed

[edit] Todo

Well, it's not a stub...barely. But it mentions only a few storms. Jdorje 08:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

B-class? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pronouns

This article refers to all the storms as "her" or "she". This is wrong (I believe) and inconsistent with all other articles. Storms should be referred to as "it". — jdorje (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? I just went by the name of the storm. Are you sure that I'm not right and everyone else is wrong. Icelandic Hurricane #12 20:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's highly unlikely that every other article is wrong. Jdorje is right, they are it's. Nothing more, nothing less. Hurricanehink 20:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've never discussed it but nobody has ever disagreed before. I'd say it is currently an unofficial wikiproject standard to use non-gender-specific pronouns for storms. Icelandic: if you disagree with the standard, take the conversation to the wikiproject page. — jdorje (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess it's fine. Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It is considered good writing style not to personalize anything, which would exclude the use of personal pronouns. This leads to the use of the term "one" a lot, but what can you do. At least with tropical cyclones you can always use terms like storm, system, cyclone, low, swirl, complex, etc. Thegreatdr 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

I changed some of the headings so that it doesn't say "Supertyphoon/Tropical Storm XXX" because other Pacific seasons don't do this if a cyclone is a tropical storm on only one side of the dateline; See here where the first storm is headinged "Hurricane" rather than "Hurricane/Tropical Storm". Even though it crossed the dateline, it was never stronger than a Tropical Storm west of it. In general, "Hurricane/Typhoon" is used when a system is at hurricane/typhoon strength; see here for example. Finally, see here for the opposite where a system was at typhoon/hurricane strength on the west side of the dateline only, so it is headinged "Typhoon". Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Track maps

Track maps would be much appreciated, Jdorje. You don't seem to answer me on your talk page, so I'll just write it here. íslenska hurikein #12_(samtal)

thanks Nilfanion. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Della's track is likely embedded in the eastern Pacific hurricane database, since it formed east of the dateline. Thegreatdr 19:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination status

Track maps would be much more helpful; also a couple of unsourced statements. —Rob (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for 1957 Pacific typhoon season has failed, for the following reason:

This article still has too many uncited comments. Grammar is weak at best. Could be improved some more, as it's a bit difficult to read at times. Chacor 15:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we have uniform standards when it comes to references? A while back, someone mentioned I should use refs, but refs only appear to be used in 1/4 to 1/3 of the articles. A number of people appear to be resistent to refs. Others, like this one, appear to use a resource section. Even if you use a resource section, shouldn't there be places in the article that annotate which resource was used where? I'm stuggling to understand all the differences; the way articles are done on wikipedia appear to be unique to the person who wrote them. At least there are some structural similarities. Thegreatdr 19:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)