Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Pacific typhoon season/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2002 Pacific typhoon season edit

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an active typhoon season that featured a lot of damaging storms. I've had it done for a while, but I decided to give it a go and try for FAC, since I believe it represents some of the WPTC's best work, and it's the best coverage on typhoons in 2002. Hope you like it as much as I enjoyed writing it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to invite User:Jason Rees to co-nom this FAC, as I might be busy over the next few weeks with music stuff. He indicated interest off-wiki that he'd be able to help out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep for my own personal reason that Hink is aware off i am willing to help out with this articles FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: While i would still like to see this article succeed in its quest for FA Status, I have become rather busy in real life and am currently only able to use Wiki at weekends and at odd moments during the week. As a result i am withdrawing from being a co-nominater of this article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the color scheme used in the headers of the infobox do not comply with WP:CONTRAST. Namely, the link colors #0645AD (unvisited) and #0B0080 (visited) against the dark red (ff6060,ff8f20) and dark blue (5ebaff) colors used do not comply according to this calculator. Since the link is to very useful information explaining the scale used, removing it isn't an option, so some sort of color adjustment needs to be made. -- Netoholic @ 19:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is a project-wide issue, one that cannot be addressed solely with this article, and as you are currently in a discussion about it with the rest of the project, I believe it is inactionable at the moment, and that it should not affect the progress of the FAC. When the concern is addressed by the project as a whole, it will also be fixed in this article. If you have any comments pertaining to this article specifically, I'd be happy to address them though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. I'm saying that there is a discussion going on to discuss this, since it affects the entire project, so it is inactionable on here. Once the issue is addressed, it will be fixed through the entire project, including this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, there FA promotion request could be "inactionable" if the article fails to comply with the MoS. I suggest helping to move along the adoption of a compliant color scheme. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but none of the 189 FA/FL's have had issues with this before, so I think it's a little unfair to single out this specific FAC, when it deals with every article in the entire project. After all, just two weeks ago, another season article in particular passed FAC with no problems. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't answer about any previous ones. It's a shame this particular MOS has been missed, but its understandable. But what I really cannot understand is why you keep repeating yourself, trying to convince people here to overlook this standard just because it was never brought up before. Now you know about it and it is an issue here and now. I don't know how others will comment, but I will not give this article a free pass on a several-years-old MoS style guideline, especially when the guideline is one designed to assist people with impairments. -- Netoholic @ 06:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not asking you to give it a free pass, or to overlook. I'm just saying that I am incapable of addressing your concerns with this one single article when the changes affect the entire Wikiproject. There is a discussion on this with you involved elsewhere, so I don't see a point continuing to harp on it on here. I just ask that you assume good faith that when a consensus is reached, that the change will be put into effect project wide, including this article. If you have anything on this article in particular (and not other articles) that you have qualms about, I'd be happy to address them, though! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have more confidence in what you're saying if, as the nominator here, you said something like "I recognize this is a problem and am working hard to address this concern". Lacking that, it feels like you're ask for a free pass on this article. Perhaps you should withdraw until this article (and the WikiProject) adheres to the MoS guideline? -- Netoholic @ 16:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite the contrary. As some editors believe that how we have it currently does indeed adhere to the MoS guideline, I feel no need to withdraw it, since I believe the article does pass all of the FA criteria. Your point is noted, but your edits are getting borderline disruptive. I feel there is no need for more discussion about this specific issue here, considering how lengthy the discussion is at WT:WPTC. But, once again, if you have anything specific about this article (and not the tropical cyclone project in general that you seem to have some beef with) that you have concerns about, I'd be happy to address them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mostly ignorant about color issues, but I know that ACCESS lists two standards, AA and AAA. Just eyeballing it, the contrast doesn't seem to be a problem, so I'm wondering if that's the issue, if the contrast meets the AA standard but not the AAA standard. - Dank (push to talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have normal vision, "eyeballing it" probably won't indicate to you the problem, but WP:CONTRAST links to tools that assist. Since this page uses a total of only about 7 distinct colors for storm strength, we should be able to get AAA, or very close to it. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added comment: the tracking images used on this page also fail to comply with WP:COLOR (""Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information"). These maps use only colored circles to differentiate the intensities. The intensity should instead be conveyed by different symbols for each, and a key should be present on the images to aid readers. -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such as the season summary map at the top of the page? - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and the individual ones for each storm. -- Netoholic @ 03:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, this is impracticable at the resolutions the track maps are made, and introduces internationalization issues. Additionally, the track maps are not the only way the data in the track maps is presented; the prose of the article indicates when and where the storms reached important intensity thresholds. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating what I said there: Like almost all our guideline pages, ACCESS has been written assuming that people will follow the instructions: "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." So, guideline pages typically don't try to anticipate every exception. They expect editors to figure out not to add numbers that would be too small to see to an image, and not to remove the single-pixel hues that are there on the theory that someone might not see them. I applaud anyone who's working on ACCESS issues, but this isn't the right call to make. - Dank (push to talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • original version
    original version
  • accessible version
    accessible version
  • To answer Titoxd's suggestion that this change is "impracticable" or that it would produce illegible results, I've put together a mockup of one way to make the indicators more accessible without impacting the current functionality. To the side is a track map from this article, and my mock-up - can you tell the difference at first glance? At thumbnail resolutions, you can see that the difference is almost indistinguishable, and I am sure with some work on the actual track generation program, the impact would be even less. The noticeable improvement, of course, is seen when the image is expanded to higher resolutions, where the addition of numbers (which correlate to the Saffir-Simpson scale used).
    Dank above makes the case that there can be "occasional exceptions" to the guidelines, and that is true, but in this case, the large number of track maps means this is far more than "occasional" and the fact that the change can be accomplished without a negative impact means this should not be an exception. -- Netoholic @ 05:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This change actually makes the data points darker, decreasing contrast with the background, and makes the image less legible for all users. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was talking about the season summary map at the top of the page. I'm not taking a position on the ACCESS issue per se ... I completely agree that it's a good thing to make images as widely accessible as possible, and of course, that tends to happen gradually as Wikipedia evolves, so I have no problem that you're raising the issue. There are people who are smarter about ACCESS than I am, so I generally just ask around when I don't know what to do. But for the map I was talking about, in the size it's going to appear to most readers (and readers don't click, most of the time), what you want would literally mean changes to individual pixels (on most screens) ... and that gets us to a different issue, the feasibility of what you're asking for. It may help to try to bring more people into the discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a note to the FA coordinators. It appears that User:Netoholic has a bit of a quarrel with the tropical cyclone project, resulting in requests for admin action, unilateral edits to heavily used templates, and numerous discussions questioning the user's edits, with regards to hurricane articles. I hope that is taken into consideration with any future action in this FAC, and that instead of having this discussion on four different pages (or more?), that this can continue without too much disruption and instead be focused on an article that I am very proud of, and one I believe should be featured! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning the well immediately after I changed my vote to oppose? Yes, I do hope FA coordinators all this into consideration. Is this how we treat people that bring legitimate MoS concerns up? -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you added your formal oppose after I implored that discussion would continue not on this page, for the umpteenth time, due to the many discussions elsewhere. I have argued that perhaps it is not a legitimate MoS concern (based on the comments by User:Dank), and since it is debatable (and indeed is being debated elsewhere), that perhaps this is not the best place for the discussion, especially in light that it has not been a problem in previous FA's, and it is not something only limited to this article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "Well, yes I poisoned the well, but only because I couldn't convince you using other means." Really? -- Netoholic @ 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out to the FA coordinators that Netoholic is engaging in a textbook case of WP:FORUMSHOPping, with no less than three discussions (including this one) all dealing with the same issue. The emerging consensus is the same one since 2012: avoid the use of links in tables that use colored backgrounds. More eyeballs from more editors would be appreciated, but the best place for that discussion is not in the middle of a FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is to bring the WP:COLOR MoS failing of this article to the attention of the FA process... which I am sure wants to know any MoS problems related to a FAC. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Colors.3F.3F.3F is a general discussion area - the section was not started by me, so I don't see how you can accuse me of forumshopping. And Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks#Wikipedia:Manual of Style.2FAccessibility.23Color compliance is a discussion about the technical implementation of the fix - you yourself replied in all three threads with nearly the same comments in all three places. If I was really forumshopping, I'd be putting this on a Village Pump thread or Jimbo's talk page or other widely scattered places.
Now, can one of the FAC clerks please close off this section devoted to nothing less than an series of attacks on my motivations for opposing, so that relevant discussion about this FAC in particular can continue? -- Netoholic @ 08:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Since the above discussion is pretty much a rehash of discussions I've voiced an opinion on in other locales, I'll be skipping down here to list my qualms with this article so far. I have not covered the "Storms" section yet, but I have read through the other sections thus far – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 2002 Pacific typhoon season was an active, - an active... needs a subject here.
  • Overall, there were 37 tropical depressions, of which 26 became named storms; of those, there were 15 typhoons - Since you're using the official tally for named storms and typhoons, I think the count for tropical depressions should be changed since I believe that includes the unofficial PAGASA tropical depression Dagul.
  • Specified that some were unofficial. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • During most of the year, sea surface temperatures were above normal near the equator for most of the year - Saying "most of the year" again is quite redundant
  • floods left about $1.8 million (P94.2 million PHP) - Substitute the peso symbol in for the 'P'
  • The last paragraph of the seasonal summary section feels incomplete. It begins in January and talks about storms up until September when the summary just ends abruptly with a little factoid on Kammuri.
  • Added mentions of Higos and Pongsona, how they were farther east than the barrage of China landfalls through September. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mid-latitude trough" in the Caloy section could use a helpful link to an appropriate article
  • Well, it'd basically just link to trough, which is already linked elsewhere in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within the North-western Pacific Ocean, both the JMA and PAGASA assign names to tropical cyclones that develop in the Western Pacific - Western or North-western, but not both.
  • They became Typhoon Ele and Typhoon Huko keeping their original name and "C" suffix. - You could probably indicate that the JTWC uses these suffixes here as well since there's no guidance on what the JTWC does in regards to naming in the Storm names section
  • The names Matmo, Nuri, and Noul were chosen to replaced
  • Some rows in the Storm Effects section are given inline citations, others are not.
  • Well, the refs there cite the damage or deaths. No cite was added for each of the storms, since that's just rehashed from above. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the notes (having to do with currencies being converted to US$ using Oanda) can be simplified by using just one broad note that covers for all of them.
  • I personally think it's easier having them separate, just to clarify the original currency right next to the abbreviated versions (such as "₱522 million PHP"). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! It's good to get specific comments on the article instead of an abstract argument. I hope I addressed your concerns here properly. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the dates of the storms be taken from the JMA best track. There are a few that use JTWC dates or that are incorrect. Supportstorm (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments. I'll add comments as I go through the article; it might take me a day or two -- not sure how much time I'll have tonight. For the record, the debate above about accessibility of the colours used for the storm track dots doesn't incline me to oppose. I'm OK with waiting for a consensus from the project and I'll assume that it will be implemented in good faith when it happens. I do have a different comment about the colours further below, however.

  • First, thanks for the review! As far as the debate, it's largely settled now, as we removed the WP:ACCESS issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not correct. The Track map color dots are still a major issue. -- Netoholic @ 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now completed a pass through; comments are below -- quite a few, but they're either minor or they're questions.
  • "In March, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon on record in the month": from the body of the article it's apparent that this means that no super typhoon had ever occurred in March before this, but I wasn't clear when I read it that that was the intention. How about "Two months later, Typhoon Mitag became the first super typhoon ever to be recorded in March"?
  • Yea, I spent a lot of time tweaking with that sentence. Yours works well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see from a look at some of the other typhoon season articles that the paragraph in the lead starting "The scope of this article ..." is common to most or all of them. I've no objection to some such text being repeated in each season article (though it would be nice to avoid the slightly self-referential "this article"), but I don't see any reason for this to be in the lead -- surely this belongs in the body, in an introductory section on scope, or background? It doesn't seem to meet the goal of a lead: summarizing the body of the article. The part of this paragraph that defines the scope of this article could be added to the first sentence (e.g. "The 2002 Pacific typhoon season, covering Pacific storms that form north of the equator and west of the International Date Line, was an active one ..."); the rest of the paragraph is probably not strictly necessary at all if you do that, but I think it would be OK in either a scope or background section, or as definitional phrases attached to the "See also" lines. And you also made me curious: what about storms that form south of the equator? What are they called, and what articles would cover those?
  • I omitted the bit about "this article" by saying "The Western Pacific basin covers the Pacific Ocean...". I still think it's important to say just where the boundaries are. It's an introductory section that helps clarify what's going on. I don't want to front load the information too much. Mostly likely, those who visit the article will know where the storms are, but for those who don't, I want a proper clarification on all of the agencies and what's going on. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK on including all of that; I agree the reader needs the information. But why is it in the lead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly I thought it was the most logical location. The first paragraph dealt with the season activity as a whole, the second dealt with individual storms, and the third clarified just what the season was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I read through again and I think it's OK as it stands; I'm not used to seeing leads do this but I can't really see anything wrong with it. I think the last sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section, though; see the next point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Storms that form to the south of the basin/Equator are called tropical cyclones and are covered by the Australian and South Pacific cyclone articles.Jason Rees (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I've ever reviewed a storm FAC before, which is amazing considering how long you and I have both been doing this, so this might be a question you've answered on other FACs: surely the colour key for the dots on the storm track should be somewhere in the article, and not only in the picture when you click through to it?
  • Interesting that's never come up! And it's especially interesting considering we had a discussion about this on the template for Storm path to change the text. I used that text and put it at the end of the 3rd lead paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's helpful, but can we say something about the colours too? E.g. "... blue indicates a tropical depression, and intensifying colours of yellow through red correspond to the [[Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale] from 1 to 5"? As above, I think this should not be in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a bit too much detail and self referential to the article. The text now matches what's used in the storm path template, used on individual storm articles, which was the result of this discussion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the sentence should be moved to the "Storms" section; it describes something that is not really visible in the composite picture, and is directly relevant to the Storms section, where it would look fine as an introductory sentence before the first storm. I think you could add some form of the sentence I suggested about colours, too: as the discussion you linked to points out, the scale doesn't make any colour recommendations, so the reader can't understand what is presented without a click. I don't think that's ideal; and it's fixable with half a sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think that would work. And as far as my talk page message, usually I just use the colons, so thanks for the heads up on how to do it differently :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a definite help to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was risen further" is a bit ugly. The problem is that "which" refers to the forecast. How about "The group increased their forecast twice more; in April to 29.6 storms, and then in early May to 30.5 storms"?
  • "The group was largely accurate in its predictions": you've just used "the group" as the subject of the previous sentence. How about "These predictions proved to be largely accurate"?
  • "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses four times a day, beginning at 0000 UTC and continuing every six hours": "continuing" doesn't seem right. It would be more technically correct as something like "at 0000 UTC and every six hours thereafter", though that's just as inelegant. How about "The JMA issued forecasts and analyses at six hour intervals each day, beginning at 0000 UTC"?
  • I still want to emphasize there being four a day more than the every six hours, so I changed it to...
  • This also address the below comment, I believe. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two consecutive sentences begin with "The JMA issued forecasts".
  • "The agency began with several meteorologists leaving": might be better as "Several meteorologists left the agency near the start of the year".
  • "slightly below the normal of 26.7": I think this should be either "slightly below the norm of 26.7" or "slightly below the normal value [or number] of 26.7".
  • "Of the storms, 15 became typhoons, which was a slightly higher than normal proportion of storms becoming typhoons": a bit repetitive, with "storms ... became typhoons" quickly followed by "storms becoming typhoons". How about "15 of these 26 storms became typhoons -- a slightly higher proportion than normal".
  • I largely did that, but changed the beginning so not to violate MOSDATE and starting a sentence with a date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to scroll up and down in the article a bit to figure out what Agaton and Basyang meant, in parentheses after the names of the storms. I did recall the earlier statement that "This can result in the same storm having two names", which helped. Perhaps that statement could be expanded to something like "This can result in the same storm having two names; in these cases both storm names are given below, with the PAGASA name in parentheses".
  • Thanks, added. This is very useful, as this is the first time a typhoon season article is up for FAC, so I appreciate comments like these especially. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The storm influenced heavy rainfall": this would mean that there was already heavy rainfall, which the storm then influenced. I'm sure the repetitive nature of these storm description means that you reach for the thesaurus, but I think just "caused" would be fine here.
  • "Caused" is so boring :P I changed it to "induced", hehe. Thank you thesaurus.com! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing the other 15 crew members to be rescued": needs to be rephrased; the storm put them in a position where they needed to be rescued, but it didn't force their rescue.
  • Reworded to - When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damage totaled $700 million, which was one of the five costliest storms on Guam": needs rephrasing; $700 million wasn't one of the costliest storms.
  • You have "considered the system as" and "considering the system as" in the article; I don't think "as" can be used in this way with "consider". You could maybe drop the "as", or perhaps use a verb that does take as, such as "regarded", though I think the intended meaning is what the agencies classified the storm as, not what they regarded it as.
  • "quickly dissipating by the next day": "quickly" and "the next day" are redundant here; I'd cut "quickly".
  • "Every month had tropical activity, with most storms forming from June through August": per the chart, this doesn't appear to be right -- July through October seems more like it.
  • Actually, check the table under "Seasonal summary and predictions". It shows that there was a depression in every month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I count three forming in June, eight in July, seven in August, five in September, and five in October. Shouldn't it say "July through October"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to tell by looking at one of the storm track graphics which end represents the start of the track? It would seem natural that there should be a way.
  • That is one of the limitations of the track map program, which doesn't have that sort of feature. However, when read with the text, the start and end should be obvious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to strike this because I agree the text makes it clear, but I did notice that File:Changmi_2002_track.png, for example, has triangles that indicate direction. Another track map I looked at had this just for the very first marker, which might be a cleaner approach -- you only need one arrow to indicate direction. Any reason this couldn't be done for all the track maps? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that's because Changmi became extratropical toward the end (basically a different type of storm), which is why the arrow changed. As for why it couldn't be done for all track maps, the track maps use the data from the warning centers, but that data doesn't indicate direction. It would be a lot of extra work to add a symbol that really isn't visible unless you click on the image. It's technically doable, but that's a lot of extra work for fairly minimal payoff, IMO. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It does, and as I say above I'm not going to oppose, but I think it would be a nice touch, if ever an OCD member of the Wikiproject wants to edit several thousand track maps to add this .... Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the image File:2002_Pacific_typhoon_season_summary.jpg, one of the storm tracks appears to disappear off the eastern edge of the map -- shouldn't it be included?
  • You use "the PAGASA" a couple of times, though it's mostly just "PAGASA"; I assume these are errors and should be fixed.
  • Given that " ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee" just redirects to the WMO, I think you should list the 14 members in a footnote; there appears to be no other way for a reader to figure out who they are or what the geographic area is (or what "ESCAP" stands for).
  • Changed the link to WMO, and added the 14 members in a footnote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tropical Cyclones are named from the following lists by ..." why is "Cyclones" capitalized? And this makes it sound like a general statement about all years, whereas this list is specific to 2002, isn't it?
  • No idea how "Cyclones" got capitalized, but I fixed that. And true, I removed the "following lists" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Japan Meteorological Agency's RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center ..." The RSMCs are mentioned a few sentences later and linked then; I think they should be linked on first appearance, and since it would be good to spell it out on first appearance, why not abbreviate JMA, as the article generally does to this point, and make it "The JMA's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) ..."?
  • Hmm, no real reason. I shortened it to JMA and added the RSMC link. Regarding the below, I adjusted where I put RSMC and Typhoon Center so they weren't right next to each other. It is correct that the JMA has "center" while RSMC has "centre". I think it's clearer now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also re the above: I can't quite parse "... Tokyo — Typhoon Center", for a couple of reasons. First, the spelling of "Center" is inconsistent with the spelling in RSMC -- is that correct? Second, making it "RSMC Tokyo — Typhoon Center" makes it sound like that's the official title of the centre, which isn't how you refer to it later in this section -- there you just say "the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre in Tokyo".
  • I don't think you need to mention twice that PAGASA has a list of ten spare names; I would remove the first mention.
  • Listing the unused names in grey makes them almost invisibly different. This is not an accessibility issue, since you do have "(unused)" next to them, but I can't imagine anyone finding the colour a quicker visual check than the parenthesis.
    I brought it up to the project whether they should be greyed or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; struck since it's not an issue for FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each of the 14 nations or territories submitted 10 names, which are used in alphabetical order, by the English name of the country." I'm not clear what this means -- each of the 14 nations does this each year, and this is the 2002 list? That can't be right; there should be 140 names. So maybe it means that there are 140 names, and they are cycled through so that the only repeat every four or five years? And the order within the 140 is alphabetical, by submitting country? It doesn't seem to be alphabetical by storm within that, if so.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yea, it's a rotating list every five years or so. But looking at it again, it doesn't really matter about the 10 names each, or alphabetical, so I cut a lot of it out to make it simpler. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments. One more read through.

  • You have "Northwestern Pacific Ocean" and "Western Pacific" sometimes with capital N and W, and sometimes lower-case. I think it should be lower-case throughout.
  • "As part of its duty as Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC)": should this be "as a Regional"?
  • I'm afraid I'm still a bit confused by the naming. What's the origin of the "0201" naming convention? Who assigns these? I'm guessing it's the JTWC, but unless I missed it you don't say that.
  • Looks like an editing error or vandalism in the Philippines storm name list; the T storm is named "File:FE" at the moment.
  • Is PAGASA's naming scheme re-used each year? So there'll be an Agaton every year? Seems unlikely but you don't mention that this is just the 2002 list.
  • You got rid of one mention of ESCAP, but there's another -- can it be linked or footnoted?
  • I think several of the external links should be cut, per # 19 in WP:ELNO. The JTWC, JMA and PAGASA, for example, all have links within the article text to their Wikipedia pages, and those pages all have links to the external websites. There's no need for the external sites to be linked on pages where they're just mentioned.

-- That's really all I can see; I look forward to supporting once we're done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I cut all but those three agencies. I think it's useful actually to show the home page for the three main agencies in the basin, but some of the others are a bit useless. Thanks so much though for the review! The article is much better now with your assistance :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate to be picky, but I think WP:ELNO is pretty clear on this, unless I'm misinterpreting it somehow. It says "one should generally avoid providing external links to ... websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered". Do you feel this guideline doesn't apply here? Personally I think this is a good guideline; it's easy to add this sort of link, but when we direct people away from Wikipedia to a page on a topic with an article, we should usually only do it from that article, because that way we can give additional context to the reader. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, ok, good point. I opted to leave that Youtube link, and removed the other three links, and added a link to the page that documents every storm in the basin since 1951, which I believe is valuable as further reading. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I've switched to support above; congratulations on a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK

  • images are PD "own work", NASA or USGov - OK.
  • sources and authors provided - OK.
  • File:FEMA_-_7423_-_Photograph_by_Andrea_Booher_taken_on_12-13-2002_in_Guam.jpg - the source link is dead, and the Wayback machine doesn't have the link archived. However i am going to AGF on this one - the photographer has made a lot of similar photos and there is no real reason to doubt the source info (if you happen to find a replacement link, great) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duh, i searched for "Booher" at the site and saw no matching hit - oh well. Thanks for finding it. GermanJoe (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image comment

  • Note: i haven't considered the previous lengthy discussion for the image check itself. Complex policy disputes should be resolved in their proper discussion boards, not during an active FAC (imo). Thankfully IANAC, so i'll leave that point to the FAC-coordinators' decision. GermanJoe (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks so much for the review!! It was very thorough, and I believe it's especially polished right now :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - what strikes me most about this article is the remarkable variety of sources it uses to create a rich account of each storm. It's a bit difficult to seamlessly blend huge government reports, scientific journal articles, and locally relevant headlines, but this article does it masterfully. The individual storm sections seem weighted appropriately, and the 'background' section goes above and beyond by presenting the storms as part of a single season, instead of just listing a fact or two about each one. No significant issues that I can see, so happy to offer my support. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Several of the rows in the last table are missing refs, is there a valid reason they should not be cited like the others? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added the refs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • No objections really. I kinda wanted to indicate when exactly they happened, but it is kinda trivial. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to adding "starting at midnight UTC". - Dank (push to talk)
  • "operating from Pearl Harbor in Hawaii to represent the interests of the United States Armed Forces in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.": I don't know what that means.
  • The agency was in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. And they pretty much only existed to help the military. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "... to supply forecasts to the US Armed Forces ..."? - Dank (push to talk)
  • "The JTWC had a backup facility in Monterrey, California for the first time in 2002, having moved from Yokosuka, Kanagawa in Japan.": I don't know what that means. Did they move their backup facility from Yokosuka to Monterrey?
  • "Several meteorologists left the agency near the beginning of the year, although the new forecasters compensated for their inexperience by relying on the consensus of various forecast models.": I don't know ... that's not a particularly nice way to put it. (Being nice isn't mandatory, but I'm not sure if the tone was intended.) You could say that the new forecasters put more reliance on the models of other experienced forecasters after several experienced meteorologists left.
  • Well, it's better than what the agency said. "Given the significant turnover in personnel, ...the season was entered with some trepidation. The effective use of the

consensus forecast approach helped to mitigate the break in forecaster experience." Really, they're quite lucky that they didn't have more problems given the change in staff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • "compensated for their inexperience" is a slightly more negative tone than "the break in forecaster experience." Your call. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "have complete sections below": I don't know what that means. It might help to be more specific, something like: "The following is a list of (certain) storms, together with (whatever features constitute a "complete section"). - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have an actual section with an infobox, as opposed to the other minor storms in the "Other storms" section. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I won't object, I'll just note that it's just not the way most wikiprojects do it. More tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 01:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence becomes a bit long at that point, but I'll change if you insist. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning in 2002, the JTWC began experimenting with forecasting to five days in the future.": In 2002, the JTWC began experimenting with five-day forecasts.
  • "which was the easternmost since": the easternmost point since - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not attached to either, so I went with yours. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damage totaled $150 million, mostly from the crop damage.": Damage totaled $150 million, mostly to crops.
  • "There was one death related to the storm's aftermath.": There was one death in the storm's aftermath. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. There have been many people who died since that storm. Simply saying "there was one death" removes any connection that "related" has. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm coming up with a long list here, so I'm going to pause to clarify three things. 1. There are lots of judgment calls here, and the relevant wikiprojects (WP:TROP, mainly) are in the best position to make these judgment calls, especially since there are a lot of fine writers and copyeditors interested in TROP articles. 2. The better copyeditors try to base recommendations on actual usage metrics and actual testing for reading comprehension and flow, rather than just repeating what other copyeditors have said. There hasn't been enough of this kind of testing, and I can't back up everything I'm saying with data ... a lot of it does come from copyediting lore and from what Wikipedians have preferred so far. But I'm interested in setting up testing on everything we can test, and I'm always open to changing my recommendations if testing doesn't back them up. 3. Every extra rule places an extra burden on writers, and that's a bad thing (and writers generally push back regardless) ... so I try as much as possible to limit my advice to the kind that can be automated. I'd like to discuss my copyediting automation project with anyone at WP:TROP who's interested. Okay, back to the grind:
  • Thanks so much for the copyediting! No worries about the long list. I apologize for taking so long to reply, as I've been moving and working a lot lately. I kinda doubt there will be much testing, as people don't generally leave comments about the specific prose of the article. Mostly, from what I've observed, people glance through the article mostly for relevant stats and figures. But that doesn't mean we can't do that :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 minute winds": 1-minute winds
  • "while the storm was located about 610 km (380 mi) east": Delete "while the storm was located"
  • In previous FAC's, copyeditors suggested not getting rid of those statements. Otherwise, there could technically be confusion if the JTWC was located 610 km east of that location. Best to be clear IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", with the latter agency naming it "Caloy".": This needs testing on readers ... until we get that done, you're safer with ", and PAGASA named it "Caloy"."
  • "due to a ridge ... Due to strong wind shear": Avoid back-to-back "due to", and use fewer of them in general. See WP:Checklist#because.
  • "quickly intensified, developing an eye feature later that day.": Drop the "quickly", unless it means something different than "developing an eye feature later that day".
  • Yea, that's a key feature. Storms can develop eyes randomly and at random intensities. Usually, as in this case, the higher intensity results in the eye feature, but it can't hurt to clarify. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entrained": uncommon word, easily replaceable
  • "after having weakened": Most style guides recommend "after weakening", but you also see "after having weakened" a lot.
  • "with a broad circulation and developing convection": Avoid using a participle as an adjective when it could be read at first as a participle.
  • "The JMA only estimated peak 10-minute winds of": This seems clear enough to me, and there's even an argument that it's best, but some copyeditors feel strongly that "The JMA estimated peak 10-minute winds of only" is more logical and better.
  • I'm not sure I agree. This sentence shows that the JMA disagreed with the JTWC. Usually a defined eye means it's a typhoon intensity, but JMA thought not. I wanted to emphasis that it's something in opposition to the previous statement as soon as possible. Otherwise, the "only" rather late in the sentence, as in your example, just seems like ordinary boring prose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The threat of the storm prompted school closures and for officials to cancel 20 airline flights": What does "for officials" modify? "... and cancellation of ..."
  • "Rammasun developed around the same time as Typhoon Chataan, only further to the west.": I'd go with: "Rammasun developed to the west of Typhoon Chataan, at around the same time." Your "only" has a sense of "except" that doesn't really fit the meaning here.
  • I kinda like the sentence structure that was here. I changed it to "but farther to the west." Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "killing one person from high waves": You can "die from" something, but you can't "kill from" something. I'd go with "killing one person in high waves".
  • I don't think that works either, IMHO. Simply changed the "from" to "due to". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "leaving [or left] X million in damage" (throughout): I'm not sure. "Leaving behind" is more idiomatic than "leaving", but this phrase is a bit metaphorical so I recommend not using it as often as you do. Also, assuming this was an estimate, maybe "leaving behind damage estimated at X million" would be less ambiguous.
  • I'm still not sure what's wrong with "leaving". It's used in many tropical cyclone articles. It's a way not to say "caused X million in damage" 20 times in one article. Your suggestion, while less ambiguous, does seem a tad verbose. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "near the same location as Chataan": Does this mean "near where Chataan originated"?
  • "relief efforts from Chataan": relief efforts following Chataan
  • "although it still passed near Okinawa with strong winds": although its winds caused widespread power outages on Okinawa [in part to avoid repetition of "strong winds" with the next sentence]
  • "allowed for all water restrictions to be removed": I think I'd go with "eliminated all remaining water restrictions".
  • "four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued": at the same time as the others were being rescued, or whereas the others were rescued? "while" is ambiguous here (and it's especially important to avoid ambiguity when talking about death). [But see below for a different fix.]
  • Heh, this is the second time dealing with this pesky sentence. The sources didn't really say whether the people died at the same time the rescues happened, but yes, it appears it was the same general time. The ship went down, some died, some were rescued. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the country. In the country,": repetition
  • "leaving $4 million (¥475 million JPY), in crop damage." No comma, and "leaving" is getting overused.
  • "When the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, four people drowned while the remaining fifteen were rescued.[59][60] The typhoon produced strong winds and heavy rain in the country.[9] In the country, Fengshen dropped heavy rainfall and produced heavy rains,[61] causing mudslides and leaving $4 million (¥475 million JPY), in crop damage.[62][nb 5] There was an additional death in the country.": The last sentence feels tacked on. Now that I see this, I might go with: "Four people drowned when the typhoon washed a freighter ashore, and one was later killed [inland? Or better yet, give a few words of description]".
  • Sadly, the source didn't give any description about that death. I opted to combine it with the mudslides and crop damage sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moderate shear caused the thunderstorms to be scattered": Moderate shear scattered the thunderstorms [or another word, if this sounds too much like "scattered thunderstorms"]
  • "the system gradually organized.[10] It tracked northwestward due to a ridge to the north,[9] and organized": repetition
  • "The depression dropped heavy rainfall in the Philippines during its passage,[9] only weeks after several consecutive tropical systems caused deadly flooding in the country. The rains forced 2,400 people to evacuate due to flooding": Repetition (rains, flooding, rains, flooding ... all for the same events)
  • "Three people were electrocuted, and flash flooding killed at least two people.[63] Tropical Depression Juan killed 14 people and injured two others.": ... In all, Tropical Depression Juan killed ...
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the comment, but I added the "In all". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two others. There were 583 houses that were damaged or destroyed, and damage": I get that you didn't want to have to spell out "583", but adding the expletive "there" isn't the fix I would have gone with ... expletives test poorly for flow and comprehension. I'd go with: "two others, and 583 houses were damaged or destroyed. Damage" - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that works best though, since it would have two "and"s in the sentence. That's something I always try and avoid. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fung-wong turned to the south": It turned to the south
  • "imparted weakening": an uncommon and kind of old-fashioned word, and its connotation is wrong for "weakening"
  • Daw, I tried using some fancy wording and I got kicked in the butt... just like grade school! (changed "imparted" to "caused") ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0600 UTC": 06:00 UTC per MOSNUM (and search for UTC throughout, adding colons)
  • Oops, changed. Yea, that came up in a previous FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made landfall with late on August 4": ?
  • "to evacuate due to flooding and after 6,810 houses were destroyed.": Were the houses all destroyed by the flooding?
  • "60 ha (150 acres)": spell out "hectares" at first occurrence (or rather, get the convert template to spell it out)
  • "Kammuri killed 153 people, most of them related to the remnants": ?
  • The deaths were largely related to Kammuri's remnants. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A tropical depression developed on August 10 the east of the Philippines.": ?
  • "After affecting the country, the tropical depression dissipated in the South China Sea on August 14.": Delete "After affecting the country".
  • Why? I changed "country" to Philippines. I think it's a great start to the paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon after it dissipated, it dropped heavy rainfall across the region": The idea is fine, but the words are contradictory. Maybe: ... the remnants dropped ...
  • "killing twelve people due to landslides": This is one of many examples where the sentence would be better without "due to". "... in landslides".
  • I'm just not a fan of that style. "in landslides" just sounds wrong to me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to a weakening ridge, and dry air caused rapid weakening. Passing southeast of Japan, it weakened": repetition
  • "24 hour total": 24-hour total
  • "The typhoon later became extratropical over eastern Russia on September 1": Delete "later"
  • "Rusa also destroyed large areas of crops in the country already affected by ongoing famine conditions.": Add ", which was" before "already".
  • "Officials made many preparations for the storm, although damage ended up being minimal on the island. Two people were killed on Taiwan, however." "preparations" is an abstract noun, not a count noun ... that is, you can't make "one preparation" (here), so you also can't make "many preparations". (You could say "extensive preparations", but I won't. You could also say something specific about the storm preparations.) Also, avoid "although ... however" unless you need it, and you don't, here. So: "After storm preparations, damage ended up being minimal on Taiwan, but two people were killed."
  • Meh, I just cut the clause about preps and said damage was minor there with the death bit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "produced a record wind gust": a record for what area and over what period?
  • "Since records began" is what the source said, so I think "Record wind gust" works fine. And the first part of the sentence is "there", referring to the landfall point of Wenzhou. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "destroyed several piers and a large boat. High rainfall and winds from Sinlaku destroyed 58,000 houses, and large areas of crops were destroyed.": repetition of "destroyed"
  • "Ele continued strengthening, intensifying to winds of 205 km/h (125 mph) before crossing": Ele's winds intensified to 205 km/h (125 mph) before it crossed
  • "1–minute": hyphen, not dash.
  • "the JTWC estimated the storm attained peak 1–minute winds of 165 km/h": Either make it "the JTWC estimated the storm's peak 1-minute winds at 165 km/h", or add "that" after "estimated", both because it sounds better that way in Commonwealth countries, and because "estimated the storm" could mean various things ... until you reach "attained", so it's best to avoid the misdirection. Also make one of those two changes for "the JMA estimated Ele attained peak 10-minute winds"
  • "and dissipated on September 13": and dissipating on September 13
  • "quickly weakened into a tropical depression.[8] The JTWC quickly": Lose one "quickly".
  • "offshore Hong Kong": off Hong Kong, or off the coast of Hong Kong. "offshore" isn't normally a preposition.
  • Let's make it simpler and just say "near Hong Kong" :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the storm moving along the coast of China for several days, Hagupit dropped heavy rainfall": Graham (the FAC coord) and some grammarians call the first bit a "fused participle". I don't care much for the boilerplate fix ("the storm's moving"), particularly here. Go with: "Hagupit dropped heavy rainfall along the coast of China for several days."
  • Not sure about fused participle, but I'm tired, so I'll go with what you put :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further west in Jiangxi, floods from the storm destroyed 3,800 houses and 180 bridges; in the province, there were 25 deaths.": Further west in Jiangxi, floods from the storm destroyed 3,800 houses and 180 bridges and caused 25 deaths.
  • "Offshore, one boat sank, prompting helicopters to rescue the crew of 25.": Helicopters rescued a crew of 25 after their boat sank. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "TCFA": hasn't been defined
  • "however ... however": It's always a sign that the writing could be improved when two howevers are this close together.
  • "and it gradually became more intense": and gradually became more intense
  • "soon after dissipated": "dissipated soon after" is probably better. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shortly after striking Hokkaidō, Higos became extratropical on October 2": shortly after striking Hokkaidō on October 2, Higos became extratropical. If time adverbs are referencing the same time, keep them together.
  • "Damage in the country totaled $2.14 billion (¥261 billion JPY), and there were five deaths in the country.": Drop the second "in the country".
  • "killing seven people involved in two shipwrecks offshore Primorsky Krai.": killing seven people during two shipwrecks off Primorsky Krai.
  • Respectfully, I think it works better as it is. I'm not sure why you don't like "offshore" being a preposition, but it works well, and I think "involved in" works better than "during". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "around a circulation": That's probably okay, but it has a redundant sound to it. You may want to fiddle with it.
  • "on October 8. ... Early in its duration, the system produced gale force winds on Kosrae in the FSM.[100] Late on October 9,": I don't see why we need "Early in its duration", since we know it's on the 8th or 9th, unless the narrative is out of chronological order.
  • "International Date line": International Date Line (unless you're talking about a place for meeting international dates)
  • "in the United States": Looks like it's technically correct, but it's ambiguous. "in the United States and its territories".
  • Yea, good point. Most people probably don't know Guam is part of the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were declared federal disaster areas, which allocated federal funding": ..., making federal funding available
  • "United States federal government": In the US, it's "US federal government", "federal government" or "US government" at least 99% of the time in print (in part because that's what AP Stylebook recommends). It's widely assumed on Wikipedia that "United States" is always okay and somehow less US-centric than "US", but I'm betting testing will show that our readers are much more used to seeing "US" as an adjective (though "United States" is always fine as a noun).
  • "The day prior,": The day before,
  • Okay, that's it. There's a lot to do if we're going to automate most of this advice, but I'm on board if TROP is willing to work with me on this. I'd rather not have to do all this by hand for a lot of FACs. (Now you can see why I generally make the edits directly ... and I started to do that today, but there was a vandal making edits today, so it was too dangerous ... I use Visual Editor, which doesn't have section editing, for big jobs.) These are the few edits I made directly. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I think I got it all. Thanks so much for all of the comments here. :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Short version: I'm happy with the article now, but I'd appreciate feedback on my last edit ... those are the minimal changes that will work for me, in light of your comments above. If those changes don't work for you, I need to know. It would also be nice to know if the changes don't make sense, so that I can ask at WT:TROP for feedback. You did a great job in your responses above. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments -- I'll promote this now, thanks all for your input. HH, couple of parting things: we shouldn't need to link modern countries like Japan, China, etc; also there's some white space on my 14" widescreen between the first section header and the table that follows it, so not sure if you can put it further down (spacing issues change from device to device so there may be no ideal solution)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 25 September 2014 (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/2002_Pacific_typhoon_season/archive1&oldid=627593142"