Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Emma (1959)/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12 May 2021 [1].

Typhoon Emma (1959) edit

Nominator(s):  Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a typhoon in 1959 that struck Okinawa, causing some damage to the territory. It was not the most damaging storm in the season, nor was it the most damaging storm to hit the islands in that season. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 04:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

Will be leaving comments soon. NoahTalk 21:07, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • and sustained winds of 55 km/h (35 mph) 1-minute winds? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9–10 knots (17–19 km/h) Conversion to mph in the parentheses after the km/h one? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 990 hectopascals (29 inHg). conversion is not specific enough, please make sure two decimal places are shown. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 970 hPa (29 inHg) Conversion to inHg isnt specific enough. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to a Category 1 add a noun after Category 1. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11 knots (20 km/h) mph conversion. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (60 nmi) Could you mention this is 70 statute miles? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 195 km/h (105 kn), estimating surface winds of 240 km/h (130 kn). Mph conversions. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to a Category 3 noun needed after Category 3. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 960 hPa (28 inHg) same pressure issue. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 35 kn (65 km/h) mph conversion. NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 995 hectopascals (29.4 inHg) Could you add a second decimal place to this one? NoahTalk 21:48, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Fixes should be complete, thanks for the review. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47 edit

I am not super accustomed to reviewing (or even reading) these types of articles so apologies in advance if any of my comments are about super obvious points.

  • The lead's first sentence identified this typhoon as "strong". Is that a category given this type of storm? I am only familiar with the Atlantic hurricane season and the hurricane categories so I do not know how typhoons are measured.
  • Technically not, but it is implied that a category three equivalent storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale is strong considering the range of winds. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead mentions something called "closed circulation". Would it be possible to add a link here for readers like me who are not familiar with this kind of weather terminology?
  • Why is Emma put in italics on its first mention in the lead and the body of the article?
  • For this part of the lead, several ships were damaged or sunk by the storm, do we have a more exact number?
  • There are three different numbers in the impact section, reporting by three different sources. I don't think there is an exact number of ships damaged or sunk. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the first sentence in the "Meteorological history" section, I would specify the year. This information is made rather obvious in the lead and the infobox, but I still think it would be helpful to point out in the first sentence for readers who jump right into the article.
  • Okinawa should be linked here (as it was southeast of Okinawa) as it is the first mention in the article (and I do not believe it is linked in the article at all and is only linked in the lead and infobox.
  • I have a question about this part, causing a postponement of a baseball game at Paseo De Susana Ballpark due to wet field conditions. Why is it particularly notable for inclusion? The postponement of a baseball game just seems rather trivial to me, particularly when it is not directly stated if it is an important game.
  • Yeah I put that in before I found an exact rain total for the area, don't think that sentence is necessary now. Removed. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clarification question about the two missing Ryuho Maru crew members. Have they been declared legally dead in absentia?
  • I could not find any news reports on what happened to those two after they went missing. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would view the following link (territory) as an Easter egg as I do not think the link is clear even with context.
  • I moved the link back a few words, should I link it with something else instead? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have two comments about this sentence: A habu, along with other types of debris, washed into the camp. I was unfamiliar with the word habu and I think this part, along with other types of debris, gives off a misleading impression of what this is. Maybe it is just me, but I do not associate a type of snake with debris. Also, why is one snake appearing in the camp particularly notable for inclusion?
  • Removed the snake, but I think the floodwaters and the debris is still worth mentioning. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, was restored to the islands after late on November 13, seems grammatically incorrect, specifically the after late part.
  • I am not really understanding the point of the "See also" section. Why are these three specific cyclones relevant enough to list here?
  • Well before the navbox at the bottom existed, I was planning on linking other similar storms from the season. Don't think that's necessary now. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be all of my comments. My review is entirely focused on the prose, as I will leave all other matters to editors who are more experienced in this field. Once everything has been addressed. I will be more than happy to support this article for promotion. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Every problem has been responded to. Thanks for the review, and I hope you have a great weekend too! Nova Crystallis (Talk) 05:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. I support the article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Willbb234 edit

  • in addition to those caused by the damage is singular, so 'those' should be changed to 'that'.
  • while crops in the territory were damaged this seems vague. could you provide something to quantify the damage, such as costs or area damaged?
  • There's no exact number given by source, and it only says the crops were damaged in the territory. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • reported for American military installations change 'for' to 'on', 'by' or 'at'.
  • and Kadena Air Base listed a damage total of $219,586.50 (1959 USD) I suggest changing this to such as Kadena Air Base, where the total damage was worth $219,586.50 (1959 USD).
  • Minor impacts... what do you mean by this? Are we talking about damages or just that the typhoon passed this area? 'Impacts' seems rather vague.
  • I'm not sure why you have placed a figure for the damage in the infobox. This statistic is only from the damages at the air base and I'd only give a figure here if there has been a good estimate of the total damage. The total damage from what I gather was likely a lot greater so saying it was simply greater than $219,587 might be misleading.
  • 18:00 UTC of November 6 west of Guam I'm not sure why you need to give its location as you state in the previous sentence it was moving west-northwest past Guam. You should also change 'of' to 'on' for all the time and dates in this article, see articles such as Typhoon Haiyan and the specific policy is at MOS:TIMEZONE for correct formatting.
  • increased strength to increased in strength.

Sorry, but I am going to have to cut this review short as I feel it is a way off meeting 1a of the Featured Article Criteria (more specifically the prose is not of "professional standard"). I'm not going to list all the issues there are in this article as I think it would be better to get a copyedit from the WP:GOCE or otherwise re-write the article. For now, I will oppose. Please let me know if you have any questions. Kind regards, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 11:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Fixed every issue mentioned. Let me know if you want to finish the review, you've already reviewed a good part of it. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox edit

  • "closed surface circulation" → would benefit from link/explanation
  • Guam missing a link in "meteorological history". Heartfox (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild edit

I agree with Willbb234 that this isn't currently ready for FAC. It needs a thorough copy edit for grammar, tense consistency, jargon explanation and - most of all - flow. There is, IMO, too much to do to be dealt with at FAC, lenient as I usually am on bringing nominations up to scratch here.Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Well, then it's probably time to close this FAC. I'll bring the article to GOCE or A-class review for copyedits and other things, but that will probably take some time. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:20, 12 May 2021 (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_Emma_(1959)/archive1&oldid=1022870009"