Talk:Tropical Storm Lucille

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Lucille/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cyclonebiskit. I will be reviewing Tropical Storm Lucille. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• "Lucille was identified as a weak tropical depression on May 25 to the east of the Philippines." You should add 'first' before 'identified' because obviously Lucille was identified throughout its existence. Even though yes, it's in the infobox, you could link Philippines.
  • I wanted to avoid using 'first' twice in a row Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Although they redirect to the same page, 'International Dateline' → 'International Date Line,' since this is common nomenclature.
  • This also occurs in the meteorological history section.
    • Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "The worst of the floods took place during the overnight of May 28 to 29." 'Overnight' is either an adverb or adjective, so you should add 'hours' after it. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Meteorological history

• "...by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)." Since (JTWC) is an abbreviation of the agency, I would exclude it from the actual link.
  • I was told a while back to include it in the link per MOS. Now people are telling me not to...I'd rather leave it for now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Same deal with "Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)" later in the article.
• "Early on May 27, the JTWC issued their final advisory on the depression as it approached the Philippines." Were there any specified reasons for such weakening?
  • Not that I could find. FWIW, it was hardly a TD to begin with...peak winds were 15 kt. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• You should state somewhere that the new system also bared the name Lucille.
  • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "...at the 500 mb level..." To a casual reader who doesn't read up on meteorological articles often this may be confusing. Maybe you should find a way to link that to geopotential height, if possible.
  • Linked '500 mb level' to geopotential height and added a note explaining what it means. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• You should rewrite China Meteorological Agency as China Meteorological Administration, since that is the official name for the specified organization. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Preparations and impact

• "The gusts on Chichi-jima caused the USS Cayuga County broach in the harbor." You are missing a 'to' between 'County' and 'broach.'
  • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Although I can see how the earthquake may have played a role in the damage caused by Lucille, since it's not mentioned elsewhere in the impact section, I would remove it. Yes, 32 people were killed, but there's no connection between earthquake and tropical cyclone elsewhere in the article.
  • I barely had reasoning for including it in the first place :P removed it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "Across the northern Philippines, torrential rains associated with the secondary low, Lucille, and a subsequent southwesterly monsoon caused extensive flooding." In the comma listing I would put Lucille first and then the secondary low. Though both ways feature 'the secondary low' next to Lucille, I think this would lessen confusion slightly - "Across the northern Philippines, torrential rains associated with Lucille, the secondary low, and a subsequent southwesterly monsoon caused extensive flooding."
  • Used suggested wording. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• "During a 24 hour span..." Insert a hyphen ( - ) between 24 and hour.
  • Added Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Script Checks

• None. Great work! TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I believe that's everything. Thanks for the review TAM! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Id like to know why you think a non-listing on NOAA's FAQ means there is uncertainty as to whether or not the name was truly retired, when you have the Typhoon Committee (ie the ones who are in charge of naming in this region) telling you that it is retired.Jason Rees (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  • NOAA is an official agency as well. Technically the report being used for the retired names is not from the Typhoon Committee, it's from the China Meteorological Administration so it falls under the same category as NOAA. I'd rather not give certainty in its retirement with the sources available. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)