# Talk:1937 Hong Kong typhoon

I added a few sentences to the article detailing the large tidal wave and the impact it caused on surrounding villages. This was added because there was not adequate information on this major aftereffect of the cyclone. Squilliam Fancypants (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

 This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Squilliam Fancypants.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on 1937 Great Hong Kong typhoon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130718071743/http://www.hko.gov.hk:80/publica/gen_pub/WeatheringTheStorm-2.pdf to http://www.hko.gov.hk/publica/gen_pub/WeatheringTheStorm-2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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 02:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1937 Hong Kong typhoon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 05:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 00:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Verifiability and copyright
Earwig says 9.1% without search engine so good to go. Verification and sources pending.

I assume the claim about No. 10 indicating potential hurricane conditions and the 119 kph wind comes from page 57 of the HKO ref from an image. Can you introduce this ref [1] for easier verification? Note the ref says "118 km/h or more".
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
"Late on 31 August the HKO, then known as Royal Observatory Hong Kong, [...]" the last bit about Royal Observatory Hong Kong is unnecessary here. Move this into background.
Moved to a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you add the times when USS Ramapo recorded 1003 mbar (4pm) and 33 kts (4.45pm)? State in UTC and then local time in footnote or parenthesis. In addition, add a thousand separator.
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"Around August 30, the storm turned more to the northwest, causing it to remain north and east of majority of the Philippines." ok, verifiable with the plot track.
Could you show me where "force 12 on the Beaufort scale" is found in the MWR pdf? I can only find force 11 mentioned.
Ack I misread, it was only force 11! Fixed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"passing just north of Pratas Island, where a pressure of 993 mbar (29.327 inHg) was recorded" ok, verifiable with both ref

There's four in-line citations that come after "its squalls of winds surpassed the capacity of the anemometer, which was greater than 201 km/h (125 mph)." I understand is the HKO ref comparing 1937 with Wanda which states the wind speed maxed out at 130 kts while MWR claims the anemometer's capicity was 125 mph. Can you clarify the differences?
I figured it out! So the 130 kt is an estimate, not the actual gust. I clarified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Alright thanks for explaining. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you assign the first four lines of Meteorological history's second paragraph their respective citations? Right now it's all packed at the end of one sentence.
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"The observations suggested that the typhoon struck with winds equivalent to a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale, or sustained winds of at least 180 km/h (112 mph)." : The ref Huang & Yim (2007) states the typhoon exceeded Category 3 and doesn't mention the sustained winds. Should be edited to "winds exceeding Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale" amd include an in-line ref for "sustained winds of at least 180 km/h (112 mph)".
Close but not quote. The source says "maximum sustained wind speed (>50-58 m/sec)", which is 112 to 130 mph, which is Category 3, not Category 4 or 5. I didn't want to say "exceed" because that's the wording in the original (don't want to plagiarize), and given their wind criteria, I felt my wording best reflected the source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It could be re-worded to "greater than a Category 3" if that's makes sense in the context of storms. But your reasoning seems fine. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
"The typhoon continued inland and weakened, dissipating northwest of Macau on September 3." Everything else is verified by the two inline ref except the Macau location.
"*Changed to "dissipating over southern China on September 3". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Late on 31 August the HKO, then known as Royal Observatory Hong Kong, issued warning signal no. 1, or standby. On the next day, the warning signal was raised to no. 5, which meant that gale force winds were expected for the territory." I assume this is referencing UTC date and time, can you add the local date and time per C. W. Jeffries in footnote?
Done, good idea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"Wind gusts reached at least 241 km/h (150 mph) in Hong Kong, when the piston of the anemometer stopped and failed" there is inconsistencies with a previous line: "winds surpassed the capacity of the anemometer, which was greater than 201 km/h (125 mph)". Perhaps I'm missing something, although I also asked you to clarify this several points up the list.
Yea, these were estimates here, not actual observations. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
"The mean hourly wind average in the territory reached 109 km/h (68 mph)." Failed verification, wrong inline that probably comes from [2].
Oh shit, thanks for catching this! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"Fishermen accounted for majority of the deceased, after the typhoon capsised 1,855 fishing boats. These included sampans, or houseboats, as well as 28 ships bound for the ocean." verifed, although could you add that some fishermen could not seek shelter in time to escape the storm?
Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Could the train of inline citations after the third paragraph of Preparations and impacts be distributed to their respective lines? Content is verified.
"In mainland Hong Kong, the typhoon swept away an entire village in Tai Po Market, resulting in an estimated 300 fatalities." ok
Could you provide access to the Twin Falls News? It is paywalled. Best if you can email the entire text.
Emailed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"During the height of the storm, nine buildings caught fire and were destroyed, resulting in dozens of deaths, after the fire brigade faced difficulty reaching the area." fine
Please assign the respective inline citations for para 4 in Preparations and impacts. It's also packed at the end of a line.
"The storm occurred concurrently with a cholera outbreak in Hong Kong amid the stagnant floodwaters." I interpret Times as saying the cholera outreak occurred after the typhoon. This citation is probably incorrect as I traced this to SCMP: "The pools of stagnant water, flooded and contaminated wells and the damaged mains (where they existed) soon combined to exacerbate the cholera epidemic with outbreaks of typhoid". In that case, the Times ref after line 3 of Aftermath is redundant.
I honestly think the sheer devastation made my brain malfunction a little bit, so thanks for catching this. Fixed the ref. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"The 1937 typhoon accounted for 38% of the costs over the ten-year period, with the repairs reaching about HK$586,000." : Let's stay faithful to the source which states "HK$585,734" and "39%".
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)


### Prose and formatting
"Time described the harbor as seventh busiest in the world... always alive with yachts, junks, ferries, sampans, freighters, liners, men-of-war." → can quote marks be added for the imported material?
Changed to quote marks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
"During its closest approach, the typhoon produced the strongest ever wind gust in the territory, reaching 241 km/h (150 mph) before the anemometer stopped, until it was surpassed by Typhoon Wanda in 1962." There's a lot going on in this sentence; perhaps break it into two? Example: "During its closest approach, the typhoon produced the strongest ever wind gust in the territory, reaching 241 km/h (150 mph) before the anemometer stopped. This record was surpassed by Typhoon Wanda in 1962."
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
"with a death toll estimated between 11,000–13,000" → "with a death toll estimated at between 11,000 and 13,000"
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"As the typhoon moved across the northern portion of the South China Sea, it intensified rapidly as it moved toward the southern Chinese mainland." → "As the typhoon moved across the northern portion of the South China Sea toward the southern Chinese mainland, it rapidly intensified."
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"[...] was established in 1883, and a year later, the agency warned the public of an approaching typhoon using a gun." → "[...] was established in 1883, and a year later, the agency began issuing public warnings of approaching typhoons using a gun."
Done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"[...], meant the potential for typhoon conditions, or maximum sustained winds of at least 119 km/h." → replace "meant" with "signified" or "indicated"
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"no." should be capitalised to "No." across the article body
Looks like another user got this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"The observations suggested that the typhoon [...]" → "These observations [...]"
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"On the next day, the warning signal [...]" → drop "On" and "The following day, [...]"
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"[...] leave harbor and seek shelter" → "leave the harbor and seek shelter"
OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"As it moved ashore southern China, [...]" → "As it moved ashore in southern China, [...]"
Are you sure? It reads better to me without it, since "ashore" is already an adverb. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"The HKO upgraded the warning further to no. 10, meaning that typhoon-force winds were expected, at 17:58 UTC on September 1 (1:58 a.m. September 2 local time)." Could you use footnote to indicate local time?
Yup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"[...], with a death toll between 11,000–13,000." "and" should replace the endash.
Yup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"British officials estimated the total damage around HK$1 million" → "[...] damage at around HK$1 million"
OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Police and other officials used rope to attempt rescuing people caught by the floods" → "Police and other officials used rope to attempt to rescue people caught in the floods"
OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"tugs were required to assist beached or stranded vessels, [...]" → "tugs had to assist beached or stranded vessels, [...]"
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"with people in Hong Kong stranded for several days." → "leaving" to replace "with"
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
"[...] accounted for 38% of the costs over the ten-year period," → "[...] accounted for 38% of these costs," : "the" to "these", and omit "over the ten-year period" because it relates to the preceding line
Got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)


### Images and captions
Images are suitable.

Do you have a location reference for the surface weather analysis image to add in the caption?
Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
What an awful storm! Article is well-written with some additional copyediting required. Referencing is good for the most part, though there are problems that require attention. The verdict is on hold, let me know when you have addressed these points. Cheers!Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I've broken up the train of ref in at least two para so verifying is easier Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh yea, thanks! Is there anything else the article needs? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  05:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Right now I'm going through a final sweep. The article is in a better condition so I will likely pass the review. Hopefully in a few hours. Thanks! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I really appreciate the thorough review! This was a difficult one to write about since it was so deadly, and also it was in a time period where we don’t have the best records. Appreciate your help and feedback. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)