Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Omar/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2015 [1].

Typhoon Omar edit

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a power typhoon that most people haven't heard of or care about, but it was interesting to write about! Read about the damage on Guam (which is part of the US) and how people coped from such a big disaster. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees edit

  • It was the 15th tropical depression, the 15th named storm, and the 9th typhoon of the 1992 Pacific typhoon season. – Not a fan of including the tropical depression stage since we are missing JMA TDs from the season and even if you are to include it does TS Ekeka not count as a tropical depression and a named storm of the 1992 season?
  • Does TS Ekeka not count as a named storm of the 1992 WPAC season?.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, rather than worrying about that, I removed that sentence entirely. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It formed on August 23 from the monsoon trough across the western Pacific Ocean while several other storms were active – I thought systems formed within the monsoon trough?
  • Basically synonymous. I can change if you want though. 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Reference 1 does not contain the name Luming and I wonder why its needed since the name Luming is mentioned and referenced below?
  • It does now. And it doesn't hurt to reference an additional name in the lead. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leads are meant to be either fully cited or not cited at all from memory :P Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The policy says Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. There was a problem recently with one of the WPTC editors questioning about the PAGASA names, so I thought I'd put it up top first and foremost. It was an editor decision. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Reference 2 a reference and not a note?
  • The first paragraph is either cited back to the JMA BT or not cited at all.
  • You state: The origin of Typhoon Omar was from a tropical disturbance exhibiting persistent thunderstorm activity, that was first noted east of Kiribati on August 20. The JTWC BT available here shows the first position as 6.6N, 173.3E or just east of the Marshall Islands not Kiribati.
  • Although it was fostered in conditions suitable for tropical cyclogenesis, - The word fostered does not sit well with me, would suggest situated.
  • However, the two storms spread farther apart, allowing a ridge to develop between them. – whats a ridge?
  • I think arguably it's a common enough term. I linked it though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a common enough term for the jo public to understand, thats the approach I was trying to take.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 0600 UTC on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, - I don’t agree that it was designated a typhoon more classified.
  • That's semantics right there, they're both synonymous. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • developing an eye – Random.
  • The positioning of it is random coming just after the upgrades to typhoon.Jason Rees (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better but normally you would moan at us for not mentioning that the system had an eye before hand.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention JTWC upgrading to a typhoon but not JMA
  • Omar began to rapidly intensify on August 28. – did it really per both JMA and JTWC?
  • Anything in the Darwin Diagnostic statements for Omar in the August and September 1992? And what about the Mariners Weather Log Volume 37 (1993) Issue 1 Pg 40
  • Nothing major about the Darwin statements. The current MH is approachable without being too difficult to understand, and I feel anything that's not there from the Darwin statement is gonna make it more confusing. I don't have access to the Mariners Weather Log, but I doubt it would have much extra. That's mostly useful when a storm becomes extratropical and it affects Alaska. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two days later, the storm came close enough to the Philippines to warrant monitoring activities from the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration, who assigned the storm with the local name Lusing – I do not like the wording you use here and would prefer something along the lines of PAGASA named the storm Lusing
  • Why? What's wrong with it? It's simpler what we have here for the layman. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is simpler for the layman then we would just put PAGASA rather than the full name.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Over land, Omar quickly degenerated into a tropical depression before turning to the west-southwest. It moved through southern China as a weak system, dissipating entirely on September 9 over northern Vietnam – Can you not combine these sentences since the JMA classified it as a tropical depression right up till dissipation.
  • What do you mean? It says it dissipated on the 9th, and it's true that it moved through southern China. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your references need some consistency in particular
  • Reference 3 and 4 the author of both is the RSMC Tokyo – Typhoon Center, you state 1 was published in February 2001 and the other was published on 1992-12-25. For Reference 4, I would prefer you to be specific and cite exactly which system it is that you are referencing or change the date of publication since the BT for 1995 etc was not published before it happened.
  • But Omar's BT was done as of 12-25 in 1992, per the best track. That is useful information to the audience, when the information was actually created. The other is just a generic reference saying JMA is the RSMC that I could've gotten from any time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 5 and 6 – Either the author is the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre or the publisher is, while you could state that the website is the National Oceanography Portal I don’t think its worth it.
  • You really should of looked at this from my prospective, a few nights ago when i wrote it out before you changed the references around.Jason Rees (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While im here isn’t Ref 1 and Ref 21 the same and it would be good to see some of the links webcited imo.
  • Agreed, merged refs. What should be webcited in your opinion? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All should be webcited in my opinon - it saves a lot of time later when trying to find replacmenet links for dead articles.Jason Rees (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 looks like it should be a book citation and not a report citation.
  • It wasn't a book though. It was a government report. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this review was compiled by myself last night before this article was nominated for FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Edwininlondon edit

Interesting article and readable prose. Just a few things:

  • in the impact session, I'd rather see the information about casulties come sooner. It now comes as an afterthought that 11 people dies in the Philippines. Same for the other countries. People before dollars damage.
  • I totally agree with what you said, only I thought about it in a different way. I put the casualties at the end to cap off the impact section. Typically, with tropical cyclone articles, we begin with meteorological statistics, then move onto their effects. Most meteorology papers are similar, where they save the summary for the end. I moved the Philippine deaths earlier in the paragraph though. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the area, the typhoon destroyed 393 houses and damaged another 145, affecting 171,603 people,[19] leaving 1,965 people homeless" this puzzled me. The 171,603 seems excessively high as a consequence of 538 homes damaged/destroyed.

Edwininlondon (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yea, that's kind of a useless statistic. I'm still not sure exactly what "affected" means when reports say the storm affected X people. Perhaps it's the population across the typhoon's wind field, I'm not sure. Either way, I removed it, to focus more on the damaged/destroyed houses and homeless. Thanks for reviewing, btw :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cyclonebiskit edit

Resolved comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another very well written article, Hink. An engaging read for sure, but I have concerns over some of the content in the meteorological history (which I know was written by TheAustinMan), as well as some other comments. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comments – I've made a few tweaks here and there and added alt text to the images. Please double check these to make sure they jive with the article appropriately.
  • General note about the usage of "damages" – Although the root word "damage" implies impact or harm, the plural noun "damages" is generally used in reference to legal compensation. I would have changed it myself, but I notice it often in your writing and felt it best to try and break this habit ;)
  • In the lead you mention the JTWC, written out, and mention the acronym used for it; however, you do the same in the meteorological history alongside adding a note explaining what the agency is. Wouldn't the note better served at the first mention of the agency overall? Additionally, since the acronym is already mentioned, it doesn't need to be written out again in the met. history.
  • Good call, I moved the note to the lead. As for writing it out, I'm not sure - I opted on the side of caution, as it is a pretty important part of the article, and it's possible someone might miss it in the lead. I know I don't always read the lead of an article first (sometimes I skim it). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lead: On Guam, Omar caused $457 million in damage (1992 USD) and one death. – Is the (1992 USD) necessary given that there's a note immediately following since sentence stating all currencies are in 1992 values? If you opt to keep it, I'd suggest moving it to right after "million".
  • Sure, I moved it after "million". I still wanted to write it out, so the 1992 was visible in prose *somewhere* (and not just in the note). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the met. history: ...and thus provide favorable atmospheric conditions over the disturbance. – The report doesn't actually indicate that atmospheric conditions were favorable over the disturbance. It states that a "major synoptic pattern readjustment" (p. 80) took place and the disturbance became more organized.
  • In the met. history: Although it was fostered in conditions suitable for tropical cyclogenesis, outflow from nearby Tropical Storm Polly sheared the system and slowed intensification. – The first part of this sentence contradicts the second part and as with the above comment, is not stated in the report. The JTWC report states, "After Omar was upgraded to a tropical storm on the warning at 250000Z, the rate of intensification decreased due to upper tropospheric wind shear from the extensive outflow of Polly (16W), which was also intensifying." It would also be helpful to note what direction Polly was from Omar (west-northwest).
  • Sounds good. I indicated Polly was to the west of the storm. I didn't say WNW, it seemed a bit too specific. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the met. history: However, the two storms spread farther apart, allowing a ridge to develop between them. – This is not included in Omar's report (which is the citation used to source this statement). I did find it in Polly's report on page 89, however, so a new citation is necessary to accurately source the content.
  • Thanks, added the page number to Polly. The whole ref is cited to the ATCR, not just to Omar's section, although the page numbers had to be adjusted. Minor oversight, I apologize. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the met. history: At 0600 UTC on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, as the storm developed an eye. – The JTWC Best Track (which oddly is not used throughout the article) shows that Omar reached typhoon intensity at 00:00 UTC. Additionally, the report (p. 80) states, "Gale force sustained winds began to buffet Guam at 272300Z about the time that a visible eye appeared on satellite imagery." This indicates the storm was upgraded before an eye formed, not as it formed. The NCDC citation used to source the eye formation also states, "A small 'eye' was discernible by the evening of the 27th". At best (but breaching WP:OR), this would indicate formation of an eye around 06:00 UTC as Guam is 10 hours ahead of UTC. It's best to clearly state that the upgrade to typhoon came before clear formation of an eye and then add when the eye was noted per the ATCR.
  • Sounds good, I think the sentence should flow better now - Early on August 27, the JTWC designated the system as a typhoon, and an eye began to appear later that day at 23:00 UTC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for met. history: the JTWC report indicates the size of the eye as it passed over Guam on page 84, useful information that should be added into the article.
  • In the met. history: The storm crossed the body of water and made a final landfall near Xiamen, Fujian – Technically not the final landfall according to the JMA (and CMA). The system briefly emerged over the Gulf of Tonkin on September 8 and moved back inland southeast of Hanoi, Vietnam later that day.
  • OK, I changed it to "another landfall". Do you think it's worth adding the Gulf of Tonkin bit? It was a minimal disturbance at that point, and I don't want to extend the MH unnecessarily (the important part was when it dissipated). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Guam section: The highest rainfall was 460 mm (18 in) in Taguac. – The tropical cyclone point maxima list by David Roth indicates a peak of 20.44 inches at the Guam WSMO.
  • Interesting, thanks for that! I wouldn't have thought to check there. Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Elsewhere section: The highest wind gust was 72 km/h (45 mph) on Yonaguni. – The prose reads as if you're referring to the island of Yonaguni but the link directs you to the town of Yonaguni which is on the island. Which one is it?
  • They're the same essentially. Yonaguni is the town on the island of the same name, so I just changed it to the island. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending on how the above comment is addressed, references to the Japanese islands should either be "[Island Name]-jima" or "[Island name] Island". The articles are haphazard as to whether or not "-jima" is included in their title so it's easy to have this happen by accident.
  • Generally I go by what the wiki article is. -jima seems to be the Japanese name for island. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Aftermath section: After the storm, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) opened up Disaster Assistance Centers... – any particular reason "Disaster Assistance Centers" is capitalized?
  • The only reason is that FEMA usually capitalizes them, which isn't good enough for me. I decapitated it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • All my comments have been resolved. Holding off on supporting until comments from the other reviewers are acknowledged as resolved. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to support now that Auree's comments have been resolved. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hylian Auree edit

Some comments - Fairly good. I am currently giving the article a quick copy-edit to resolve prose-related issues. Below are some concerns I ran into during the process:

  • In the second paragraph of the lead, you mention Omar was a "large typhoon" when describing its impact. However, this is never mentioned in either the first paragraph or the met history, which is supposed to discuss its meteorological characteristics.
  • That's loosely based off the quote in the impact section - "more powerful than Polly and it can induce monsoon rains over a wide area". It's a bit of a stretch, I admit, so I removed the "large" bit and rejiggered that bit to "While passing well to the north of the Philippines". Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Minor, but what does mentioning that other storms were active when it formed add to the lead? Seems borderline trivial. You mention its interaction with a "nearby system" (vague terminology), but IMO you could drop the first part and just explicate that the nearby system was indeed another tropical cyclone.
  • I thought it made it more engaging, especially how the various storms set up the general pattern. However, I changed it per your suggestion. Things I find interesting definitely don't apply to the outside reader :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why an "unofficial" super typhoon? There's a hat note but it doesn't make it clearer at all—in fact, as a layman to West Pacific typhoons, it further confuses me.
  • The JMA doesn't use super typhoon status, only the JTWC does. Over the years, I've gotten enough harping from some users (*cough* Jason Rees *cough*) to de-emphasize JTWC in favor of the other warning centers. I moved where the hat note is to explain the bit about sustained winds over 1 or 10 minutes. Should I add a note that the JTWC is American-based and the JMA is the official RSMC earlier? I say that in the MH, but I could do it earlier. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)#[reply]
  • It's not so much the distinction between the 1- and 10-min winds that's unclear, rather the usage of the word "unofficial". Unofficial in what sense? Is a super typhoon designation something that is unique to the JTWC, not recognized by other agencies? If so, consider something more explicit along the lines of "making it a super typhoon according to the Joint Typhoon Warning Center" (for a lack of better wording atm). Auree ★★ 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "west Pacific basin" pipe-linked to "Pacific typhoon" (which further redirects to simply "Typhoon")??? Moreover, "the basin saw the dissipation" is distinctly odd phrasing.
  • The basin's article used to be at "Pacific typhoon", similarly that the parent article for Atlantic hurricanes is at Atlantic hurricane. However, as the WPAC is the only basin to use "typhoon", it redirects there. That article covers climatology related to the basin, as well as general statistics. I thought the writing was clever there, not that odd, but I changed it to something simpler. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There is an article for storms in the western Pacific Ocean, which is the basin article. The article for the Atlantic equivalent is Atlantic hurricane. For the WPAC, it's typhoon, per a talk page consensus that the "Pacific" isn't needed either. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe briefly explain what the monsoon trough is, to clarify why it would be able to realign to a climatologically more appropriate position.
  • I said that the monsoon spawned most of the storms in the year. Does that work? Or should I clarify more what it is? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That adds a nice bit of context, thanks. Auree ★★ 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give a location estimate for where it became a depression according to the JTWC; is there any estimate from the JMA?
  • They're pretty close to each other, I didn't feel it was necessary. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then mentioning a location for the first classification (i.e. that of the JMA) flows better, imo. Auree ★★ 20:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, I just removed JTWC location and stuck with JMA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose-related, but a major one: "Tracking generally westward, the JTWC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Omar on August 25,[2] with the JMA indicating such a change the day after.[4] Omar began to slow as it tracked westward." - dangling particle and redundancy. Not what I'd expect from a FAC. I amended the first part, but the redundancy remains to be solved.
  • I changed the ending to "and the JMA followed suit on the next day." That work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not happy with the introduction of the term convection without a wiki-link in the second paragraph, while "thunderstorm activity" is pipe-linked to the article on convection earlier when the two are not synonymous weather phenomena.
  • Maybe briefly explain what PAGASA is? I get that the full name is rather lengthy, but I don't think dumping in a new acronym suffices, even with its wikilink.
  • I wrote out the name in a hatnote. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is it for now. I read and copy-edited up till the preparations and impact section. Auree ★★ 13:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing from the impact section...

  • You mention all but two US Navy ships were sortied at the COR 2, but later mention that at COR 1, "ships" were either evacuated or secured. Were these different, non Navy ships? It's not very clear at the moment.
  • "United States civil defense" isn't a department but is currently used as such (ordered). Is this supposed to be the Department of Defense (which is mentioned earlier)?
  • Well, it's part of "Guam Homeland Security/Office of Civil Defense", for which it's mentioned here, but that's not the article on it. There really isn't an article on it. Should I delink it then? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about this one, but "tourism areas" → "tourist areas"? Google prefers the latter.

Overall not as much to nitpick here. Auree ★★ 10:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, style and comprehensiveness, with the caveat that I am currently cleaning up the citation formatting. All my above comments have been adequately addressed. Well done, Hurricanehink! (One more minor quibble in Aftermath: "although water access was expected to be restored within a few days of the storm." Was it?) Auree ★★ 00:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Typhoon_Omar/archive1&oldid=1136094961"