Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Page (1990)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Typhoon Page (1990)

(

)

... that Typhoon Page was the record-setting sixth tropical cyclone to hit Japan in 1990...? Source: "Typhoon Page was the 28th spawned in the Pacific this year and the sixth to hit Japan, a single-year record, the Meteorological Agency said."
- ALT1:... that Typhoon Page was the latest typhoon on record to hit Japan...? Source: "It also broke a 42-year-old mark as the latest past the normal typoon season."

Reviewed: Karimul Haque

Created by Yellow Evan (talk). Self-nominated at 17:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC).

Interesting hook, meets length requirements, sourced. Although I'm a bit confused about whether it was the fourth or sixth. The opening paragraph of the lead says fourth to hit Japan, and the first sentence of the second paragraph in the lead says sixth to hit Japan. Maybe it's just the wording but it's confusing me. — Calvin999 16:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: "Typhoon Page was the fourth tropical cyclone to strike Japan in three months.[1] " and "Typhoon Page was the sixth tropical cyclone to directly affect Japan in 1990, setting a record for most systems to hit the country. " have two completely different meanings, given that the typhoon occurred in December, which means that three months from December is September. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Right okay, I think the opening sentence needs to be re-worded in order to reflect that, because there are a lot of dates mentioned in a very short amount of time and I found it quite confusing. You can make the opening sentence longer without affecting the structure too much. — Calvin999 16:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: Better? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Not quite, add ' in 1990', as the entire lead makes no mention of a year at all. But as you ask, I apologise if this is proving arduous for you. You are clearly well informed about the topic and know what it is that you have written about. I, however, have no knowledge, or interest, in this topic, and I am simply doing a review in order to add to my own nomination, as I'm sure you know how DYK works. I picked yours out of many others because it's been sitting there for a few weeks. If I find some things don't make sense, then I probably wouldn't be the only one out of the many who will come to this article as a result of being on the main page. Leaving 'ugh' as an edit summary, and clearly being quite unimpressed about me asking you to make what are actually very small, minor adjustments, is not exactly conducive to showing appreciation for me reviewing this. Your whole demeanour has been as though I should have raised no queries and just automatically given it a green tick without even looking at it. — Calvin999 09:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Calvin999: The "ugh" was in response to a typo, not the actual DYK review. Anyhow, I added 1990. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 12:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

— Calvin999 14:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)