Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Sudal/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 SandyGeorgia 02:57, 13 October 2010 [1].

Typhoon Sudal edit

Typhoon Sudal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it was a really interesting storm, and I'm really proud of my work. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gary Padgett (2004). lacks an authorative publisher. I have concerns about the Reliability of this source due to the lack of a publisher taking editorial responsibility. Possibly finding Padgett's original publication mode, and notes of expertise, and merely noting that this material is available as hosted on that website would improve this situation. Citation would then be "Original mode of publication" "Available at:...". The hosting website doesn't appear to have editorial responsibility and oversight. Padgett doesn't appear to have a meteorological or academic position.
  • >International Federation of Red Cross And Red Crescent Societies (2004-04-10). wikimark-up
  • Republication of press releases by a non-news outlets. Such an organisations by republishing faithfully press releases is not taking separate editorial or journalistic responsibility for the material. It appears then as SELF press releases.
  • Comment—a dab link to Fais; no dead external links. Ucucha 04:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, as said below, Gary Padgett's status has been asked before. He is a trusted expert, having appeared in several NOAA publications. For the most part, I used his source to indicate what the storm did. It's a much more-organized source, as opposed to meticulously citing every discussion from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and the Japan Meteorology Agency. I fixed the linking for the Red Cross and Fais articles. I'm not exactly sure what I should do about the self press releases, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The CMA BT analysis should be used over Gary Padget monthly summary since they lowered the winds to 50M/S sustained over 2 minute period, here.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should probbably make clear that the CMA windspeeds are over a 2-minute pierod as opposed to 10 3 or 1.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the redlink should point to China Meteorological Administration.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, thanks. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Gary Padgett's summaries are off a high enough quality to be used since i know they were used as a primary source in RSMC Nadi's write up of a season over their own advisories and reports from people such as their National disaster coordinating council.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The name "Sudal" was contributed by South Korea for the Pacific tropical cyclone list and is the Korean name for the otter." - Thats trivial and not required.
Well, I based it off of the Typhoon Pongsona article, which does mention it. Most Pacific typhoon articles do mention it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Triple check all your units are km/h (mph) as i found two instances of them not being in the correct order for the basin (which i corrected).Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again, it should be good. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As these are all minor things im happy to Support this articles promotion.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very well-done Hink, glad to see that this storm finally has a quality article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments I feel that the text is good, but it needs a bit of polishing/clarifying for those not very knowledgeable with the topic. These should only necessitate a small amount of editing so I don't think they should be a problem:
"international designation: 0401, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA designation: Cosme" do any of these have a meaning? I might be able to guess what 0401 stands for, but 03W and Cosme seem random; try to add a note explaining how are these designation chosen
I added the info on JMA and JTWC, and slightly clarified PAGASA. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lead para: 2nd para should be after the 3rd (damage and aftermath should come after storm history)
Fixed. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Typhoon Sudal was the strongest typhoon to strike Yap in about 50 years" which was that one?
I tried, but had no luck. Some sources said about 50 years, others said 50 years, but none said what storm was previous worst. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is Typhoon Ophelia in 1960 [2]. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was also an Ophelia in 1958 that was among the wettest typhoons on Yap. Unfortunately, per the no original research policy, I can't add that, because I spent a lot of time last night and some this morning trying to link Sudal with some definite storm in the 1950s, but I've had no luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of that when I was looking for the storm myself yesterday. Still, it might be better to add a footnote trying to explain this situation. I.e. say: "sources do not explicitly state the storm, but two typhoons named Ophelia struck Yap in 1958 and 1960 and produced significant damage". I don't think would be OR, but instead a clarifying note. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"and it gradually intensified into a typhoon; a typhoon is the equivalent of a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean, which is a tropical cyclone with winds of at least 119 km/h (74 mph)" seems awkward; so hurricanes are designated above 119 km/h, but typhoons are not technically defined that way?
Good catch. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the article is lacking precise location of the places mentioned. for example it should be: Yap, FMM; Pohnpei, FMM; Rota (island), Mariana Islands; Chuuk, FMM; etc. Make sure you also clarify that these are islands, or groups of islands. If you would be talking about New York these details would not be important, but all these palces are obscure islands in the Pacific; at least localize the ahipelago, or the country they pertain to.
Better? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
what is "wind shear"?
Better? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the storm path image should clarify the color scheme: is it wind speeds or storm level/class (i.e. at least say red for level 5 or whatever is the highest classification level, or say what color means >100km/h)
Do you mean explaining that in the article or on the image page? The project standard is not to have too much info below the storm path, since it's mostly just meant to show where the storm went. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant in the caption. Just say what does the brightest hue of orange mean (i.e. "bright orange depicts the path where the storm was at its peak, winds above ??km/h" or something like that). Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some description, but I didn't want to add too much. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the lead says it did strike Yap, but the text says it was 45km away at its closest approach; for somebody not in the field this is very confusing
Clarified, I hope. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"with the appearance concentric eyewalls on satellite imagery" needs a brief explanation of its importance (i.e. indicative of intense....)
Yea, done. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please link "super typhoon" better
KK. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JMA's peak intensity for Sudal was 165 km/h (105 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 195 km/h (120 mph) 1-minute sustained. The JTWC's peak intensity for Sudal was 240 km/h (150 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 210 km/h (130 mph) 10-minute sustained 10-min or 1-min, 1-min or 10-min; inconsistent and could be slightly less repetitious.
I realize some of the words were redundant, based on the preceding sentence. Does that work? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? I think you missed the point I was trying to say. I meant that it read like: X has 2 apples and 3 oranges, Y has 4 oranges and 1 apple (i.e. unnecessary inversion). Can't you say X has 2 apples and 3 oranges, while Y has 1 and respectively 4. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh! OK, I changed it. Lemme know if that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"A home completely destroyed by Sudal" where is this home???
All I know is that the image was on Yap. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Before Typhoon Sudal struck the island, there were about 8,000 people were living on Yap, with about 1,700 houses." this implies that after the storm, the numbers were significantly different (i.e. people emigrated); if yes, please expand
Changed "before" to "when". Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"FSM" you never explain this acronym (which btw should be F.S.M., as in U.S.)
Well, the article on it says the acronym is "FSM". I hope that is fine. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should explain somewhere how notable/important is Yap to FSM
IDK, would I have to explain why Florida is important in the US? --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant is Yap like is California for US, or like Martha's Vineyard? Administrative divisions of the Federated States of Micronesia says it is one of the 4 states. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gotcha. I originally had something like that, which I removed on someone else's suggestion, but I added it back in at the end of the first paragraph. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aftermath does not say at all if there were 'aftermaths' outside Yap
I couldn't really find any. As the article said, there wasn't much damage outside of Yap, so if there wasn't much damage, then there wouldn't be any aftermath. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Due to the heavy damage, the name Sudal was retired" the heavy damage should be put in perspective (i.e. it was among the ten most devastating storms in Pacific?)
Actually, it was due to its damage on Yap, which I clarified. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of explaining better how notable were its effects in comparison with other retired names. Anyways, based on List of retired Pacific typhoon names (JMA), you could say that it was the seventh name to be retired (this way it does not appear like it is the 100th or something like that). Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! I hope I addressed most of the comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full support the article is comprehensive and well written. I believe it fulfills the FA criteria, and makes it for a good, easy, and interesting read. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a FAC has been up for a month and has received independent (non-Hurricane support), I expect to find it ready for promotion. However, when the lead has clear issues, I'm not encouraged to read furtherl. Looking at the lead only, I suggest further prose review is needed. Samples (after I fixed the undefined acronym in the lead):

Typhoon Sudal (international designation: 0401, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA name: Cosme) was the strongest typhoon to strike the island of Yap in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) in about 50 years. The entire island, only 17 km (10 mi) in length, experienced typhoon force winds, and 90% of the structures were damaged or destroyed. Damage was most severe in southeastern Yap, where the eyewall struck and winds exceeded 185 km/h (115 mph), but the center of the typhoon passed south of the island. Yap is one of the four administrative divisions of the FSM.

Typhoon Sudal originally formed on April 2, 2004 over the open western Pacific Ocean, out of a persistent area of convection. It moved mostly westward for the first week of its duration, with brief northerly and southwesterly turns. Sudal attained tropical storm status on April 5, and it gradually intensified into a typhoon; a typhoon is a tropical cyclone with winds of at least 119 km/h (74 mph), and is the equivalent of a hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean. On April 9, it passed just south of Yap, and shortly thereafter its peak winds were estimated at 240 km/h (150 mph). Later, Sudal moved to the northwest and eventually to the northeast, becoming an extratropical cyclone on April 16 and dissipating two days later.

Other than the damage on Yap, the typhoon dropped heavy rainfall in Chuuk in the Federated States of Micronesia, where some minor crop damage occurred. Sudal also brushed the United States islands of Guam and Rota with high waves and light rainfall, and later moved very close to the uninhabited Japanese island of Iwo Jima. Overall damage totaled about $14 million (2004 USD, $16.1 million 2010 USD), most of which was on Yap, although no fatalities or serious injuries were reported. Due to the heavy damage, the name was retired and replaced with Mirinae. The name "Sudal" was contributed by South Korea for the Pacific tropical cyclone list and is the Korean name for the otter.[1]

  1. Why isn't YAP as one of the four administrative divisions tacked on to that paragraph rather than explained right after YAP is introduced?
  2. Why "but" the center of the typhoon passed south; why the but, what is inconsistent, why is there a contrast?
  3. We find similar in the last paragraph: why the "other than", what is the contrast with heavy rainfall?
  4. Why "open" ocean?
  5. Why is the definition of a typhoon tacked on as a separate system after typhoon is introduced?
  6. "Overall damage totalled"-- redundant.
  7. Why "although" no fatalities or serious injuries" ... why is that tacked on with damage?

Samples only, can't promote this without better review of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I don't consider the lede to be representative of the prose quality of the rest of the article. I had some difficulty with this lede, and it has changed several times during the FAC. One such difficulty was explaining what Yap is, which I originally had very early in the lede, then removed, so I'll agree with you and put it back to the second sentence. I feel it is important to use "but" when indicating the typhoon passed south of the island, because the previous phrase says "where the eyewall struck". There is a difference between the eyewall striking and the typhoon making landfall, which I emphasized. I changed "other than" to "in addition to". As for "open" ocean, it is a common term referring to areas far away from land; that said, I changed it to reflect closer to what the article said. Most tropical cyclones cause deaths and damage, generally the greater the damage the more deaths. I thought it was interesting that there were no deaths or serious injuries from this storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference gp was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Typhoon_Sudal/archive1&oldid=1078808714"