# Talk:Typhoon Francisco (2013)

I think this article does not need to exist and ought to be merged into the season article.
For example, the lead: It is all storm history. Practically nowhere else do we mention rapid deepening in the lead.
And "... On October 19, the JTWC upgraded Francisco to peak 1 minute winds of 260 km/h (160 mph), the equivalent of a Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale;..." In the western north Pacific, that intensity  is routine, with almost every year having multiple systems that deep. This by itself cannot be enough to make a system need its own article.
Per the season article, typhoons killed 6825 people this year. Francisco killed none of them. Likewise, there was 22.8 billion in damage, with this storm causing less than a ten thousandth of it. Most of the damage was due to blown trees. Almost every tropical cyclone that hits land blows down trees.
Sorry, nothing in this article shows that it should be anywhere near the highest priority for creation. Practically the entire article could easily be merged into the season article with minimal changes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Yea, but it's in the process of being re-done. It's not an ideal situation to merge, given how long 2013 PTS. It did last 11 days. When complete, I think it'll be tough to condense down to 1-2 paragraphs. It's not about intensity, it's not really even about impact, it's about content. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I finished redoing the article. Do you still think it should be merged User:Miss Madeline? Most of the deaths and damage were due to one or two storms, but that doesn't mean some of the other storms aren't article-worthy. I agree with YE, there is just too much info to condense into the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should making so many articles on such (relatively) minor storms. They might be easier to do, and I have fallen into that trap. And I don't think my proposal for this to be merged is going to be successful. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not paper. It's not like we spend too much time, doing them as there have been several key typhoons that have been re-written this year into GA's/GAN's. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, an article on a recent Cat 5-equivalent with documented damage isn't problematic, especially when the article is in such good shape. At this point it might be best to remove the merge template, as it's likely to cause problems for the GA nomination. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Francisco (2013)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 17:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems the merge discussion has been closed, so now that the article is stable, I'll review it. 

Minor quibble here, but I think it's a bit weird that the ordinal indicators in the second sentence are in subscript. I don't know what the MoS says about this, but I've always seen them in superscript.
Might be good to figure out a way to link central dense overcast when you talk about the eye being surrounded by deep convection.
Japanese refiner company Nansei Sekiyu KK to suspend berthing operations at its facility on Okinawa. - I have no idea what that means, but I'll assume I'm just out of touch.
On Izu Ōshima, all 8,365 residents were advised to evacuate for the first time in 27 years, of whom about 1,300 people were forced to evacuate - bit of a cumbersome sentence with the dangling modifier.
Finally, I think you should add a brief description for each "see also" link, relating them to Francisco.
As I trust you'll take care of this stuff, I'll go ahead and pass the article. Nice job! – Juliancolton | Talk 17:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 20 external links on Typhoon Francisco (2013). 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/ABPW10-PGTW_201310150000.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPN23-PGTW_201310152100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310160300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310162100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310170900.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310172100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310180300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310182100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310190900.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310201500.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310210300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/TCUPDATE_201310212100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/TCUPDATE_201310232100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310220900.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310222100.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310230300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310240300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310240300.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WDPN33-PGTW_201310250900.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPN33-PGTW_201310252100.htm
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 21:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)