Talk:Typhoon Mujigae

Latest comment: 3 years ago by CodingCyclone in topic GA Review
Former featured article candidateTyphoon Mujigae is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleTyphoon Mujigae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 24, 2021Good article nomineeListed
April 10, 2022Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Typhoon Mujigae. 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:

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 17:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Cat 3 or Cat 4?

edit

The track of the storm tracked the typhoon was Category 3 typhoon, why the articles tracked it reached Cat 4 as the last forecast (JTWC) on Oct 4, 2015? 14.167.133.68 (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Mujigae is listed as a Cat 4 typhoon with 1-minute sustained wind-speeds of 115 kts in the JTWC's post storm analysis. However, since it peaked on October 4th at 03z or in between the 6-hourly synoptic times, the person generating the track map may have ignored it or missed the 3 hourly point. Either @Meow: or @Supportstorm: will be able to explain more or possibly redo the track map.Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
All the track maps are produced using 6-hourly points for consistency. Any intermediate positions are not reflected in our maps due to limitations in differentiating them from the synoptic ones. This is why the Cat 4 peak does not show up in our maps. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply
^ This is exactly the reason. It is assumed that all point are in six hour intervals.Supportstorm (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Todo

edit

Philippines

edit
  • NDRRMC Final Report (supposedly dated October 14, but no idea why that isn't mentioned anywhere)
  • At least 4 fatalities: [1], [2]: one bitten by snake, one drowned (no elaboration), one drowned after going fishing on October 1 and found October 3 (confirmed by NDRRMC), one more drowned and body found October 8 (see later)
  • [3] As of October 6, 3 dead according to "partial and unofficial report" from PH Coast Guard - presumably includes the one confirmed by NDRRMC, which would mean total is 6
  • [4] One body found October 8, search and rescue to end October 9 (nothing that confirms that) so 12 missing (corroborates with NDRRMC final report)
  • More info about the missing fishermen: [5], [6], [7]

China

edit

Overall

Guangdong

Guangxi

Hong Kong/Macau

KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CodingCyclone (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

This has been sitting for a while, so I figured that I'd try my hand at GA reviewing. This is my first review at the GA level, so please notify me of any mistakes I make. Thanks. Comments will come throughout the week; I'm reading through the article. There are several wording issues that must be resolved. I'm also doing some of this on a mobile device, so there may be some minor typos. Sorry about that. codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • Typhoon Mujigae, known in the Philippines as Tropical Storm Kabayan, was the strongest typhoon to strike the province of Guangdong in the month of October and the costliest typhoon to impact China in 2015. This sentence seems a bit long. maybe remove the part about Guangdong, since that record seems really specific. Optionally, unlink China; see MOS:OL.
  • The typhoon caused widespread damage in the Chinese provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan from October 3 to 6, 2015; earlier in its existence it impacted the Philippines as a developing tropical cyclone, and later on it brought heavy rain to Thailandand Vietnam. This just seems a bit disorganized; I would change it to As a developing tropical cyclone, Mujigae impacted the Philippines, before going on to make landfall in China, causing severe damage in the provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan when it made landfall between October 3 and October 6. Vietnam and Thailand also experienced heavy rainfall from the storm as it weakened over China.
  • before emerging into the South China Sea the next morning. "before emerging into" seems a bit vague; I'm not sure how to describe it. I would use before crossing into instead.
  • Mujigae strengthened quickly and then rapidly over the next two days, becoming a mature typhoon with 10-minute sustained winds of 155 km/h (100 mph) Okay. A few things: "quickly and then rapidly" a bit redundant. Just say Mujigae underwent a period of rapid intensification over the next two days. "mature" is also an odd adjective to describe a typhoon, you can use something like strong or powerful: becoming a strong/powerful typhoon with 10-minute sustained winds of 155 km/h (100 mph) would sound better.
  • weakened swiftly I may just be nitpicking, but "quickly" would fit better here.
  • Mujigae's most severe impacts occurred in China, where the provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan were the worst hit. I would say ...most severe impacts occured in China, with the provinces of Guangdong, Guangxi, and Hainan being the worst hit.
  • resulting in widespread power outages and disruptions to telecommunications and water supplies. Stick to past tense; use "which resulted" instead.
  • besides killing seven and leaving 223 injured This wording is also odd. maybe use 'also' instead of 'besides', since besides makes them look like two separate events.
  • Link flash floods and landslides in the third paragraph.
  • These had the effect of disrupting tourism amid China's "Golden Week" holidays in lieu of their National Day. This seems like passive voice, though I may be wrong; rewrite as The storm disrupted travel during China's "Golden Week" holiday in celebration of their National Day., make sure to link Golden Week.
  • In other parts of China, Hong Kong and Macau experienced gusty winds and heavy rain from October 3 to 5 as Mujigae passed to the south, but were left relatively unscathed. Needs a rewrite: Hong Kong and Macau also experienced gusty winds and heavy rain as Mujigae made landfall from the south. Despite this, the regions experienced minimal damage.
  • Towards the end of Mujigae's lifespan, the outer circulation of Mujigae brought heavy rains to parts of Vietnam and Thailand. Localized flash floods resulted, damaging homes and crops. Change "the outer circulation of Mujigae" to "its outer circulation", and change "...Thailand. Localized flash floods resulted" to "...Thailand, which resulted in localized flash floods".

Meteorological history

edit

Effects in the Philippines

edit

That's it for this section, there aren't too many problems here.

Effects in mainland China

edit
  • Mujigae was the costliest typhoon to impact China in 2015. [citation needed]
  • For context, tornadoes in China are rather uncommon: less than 100 were recorded over the past 50 years, of which about 20 were at or above EF3 intensity. [citation needed], and you can remove "For context," since it seems unnecessary.
    • It's supported by Zhao et al., 2017. To me, "For context" seems necessary to explain the sudden switch to present tense and to note that the following bit is an explanatory supplement rather than more descriptions of damage. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • four missing As of when?
  • living in vulnerable areas were resettled Did they resettle permanently, or did they just evacuate?
  • storm surge failed to breach the city Seems a bit dramatic, what about "storm surge did not affect the city"?
    •   Partly done I think I meant to imply here that storm surge did not enter the city, which is what I'll change the wording to. I don't think it's really accurate to say it didn't "affect" the city since it definitely caused some worry to the inhabitants. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • morning on Change to "morning of".

Effects elsewhere

edit

Aftermath

edit

Copyvio?

edit

Earwig's down, please wait for this one ... codingcyclone advisories/damages 19:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

It finally worked! 🎉 Destroyeraa-alt said that he didn't see any issues, so I'll pass this. I got a similarity of 10.7% here but there was no copyvio. Congratulations! codingcyclone advisories/damages 18:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sources

edit

Final

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: