Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Vamei

< 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 18:33, 24 March 2008.

Tropical Storm Vamei edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I re-wrote the article and expanded it to become, what I believe, to be the best source of information on the web for this particular tropical cyclone. Now, this wasn't just any cyclone. It formed in a region of the world that is believed to be impossible for tropical cyclone formation. So, there might be a little problem or two, but I'll be happy to fix it if you point it out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support Great article, with a lot of useful information, but needs a few more references, especially in the lead. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information in the lede appears later in the article, so there's no need for refs up there. Also, the entire body of the article is sourced. Regarding potentially not enough references, unfortunately, most of the references on the storm I had found were copies of the ones I chose for the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moderate Support If there is such thing...I like it all, but it seems to need a bit more expansion. Too little on anything else, such as aftermath. But then again, the other FA Geology etc. are just as long, so good enough, but a bit more would be nice. Especially with the limit info. And I like the wind measurements and the accurate time sustained, but they might need some refs...--Sunsetsunrise (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, there really isn't much info on this storm online. It's a bit of a tricky situation. It didn't quite cause enough damage to be known for that. Instead, most info on the storm deals with its unusual formation, and its record low formation. Additionally, it was just over six years ago, which is before the time period when tropical cyclones became really popular with news agencies. As I said, everything in the article is referenced. This is how I do things. I put a reference at the every section, which means all of the info from that section came from that one reference. A section could be a sentence, paragraph, or somewhere in between. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Are those 2 refs in the lead necessary?
  • "tropical storm, the intensity of Vamei is disputed; some agencies classify it as a typhoon" - can you wlink typhoon and tropical storm (if different to tropical cyclone, mentioned above. and if not, then just use the same word in both cases) for those who are clueless, like me!
  • "140 km/h (85 mph)" - to km/h and mph need to be wlinked to their respective units' articles?
  • The Storm history section image could have a better caption?
  • "a tropical depression about 230 km (145 mi) east of Singapore, which is 156 km (97 mi)" - I think you could drop the "which is" in favour of a semicolon (personally, anyway...)
  • "However, convection persisted near the circulation over land, believed to have been caused by upper-level diffluence." - might be jargon or I may be dumb, but somehow I just don't...get...this sentence...
  • Some refs (I noticed when looking at #4) don't have publisher info
  • "In 2004, the name "Vamei" was retired and replaced with "Peipah"" - anything else on this...seems odd as a parastub
  • The title of the navbox at the bottom is a redirect.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks, I got all of them. The one ref in the lede was needed, since the WPTC agrees to have the sentence on the naming of WPAC typhoons in the lede. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments My list of copyedit issues, which follows, had so many really minor prose improvements on it that I took the liberty of making those changes myself. I've kept the self-completed part of my list below in case my explanations are helpful. The remaining issues follow.

Resolved issues from Maralia (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On December 29, the system reached the southeastern Bay of Bengal, which was initially believed to have been a separate system." - 'On December 29, what was initially believed to be a separate system reached...'
  • "However, the JTWC classified as a continuation of Vamei in a post-season re-evaluation, based on analysis of satellite imagery indicating the circulation of Vamei crossed Sumatra without dissipating." - multiple issues. 'In a post-season re-evaluation, the JTWC classified it as a continuation of Vamei, based on analysis of satellite imagery that indicated the circulation of Vamei crossed Sumatra without dissipating.'
  • "The circulation from which Vamei developed from was a vortex that appears along the northwest coast of Borneo during every winter, which is maintained by the interaction between monsoonal winds and the local topography" - 'Vamei developed from a vortex that appears every winter along the northwest coast of Borneo and is maintained by interaction between monsoonal winds and the local topography.'
  • "Thus, the conditions for the formation of Vamei are believed to occur once every 100–400 years." - '...the conditions which resulted in the formation of Vamei...'
  • "Radar image of Vamei from USS Carl Vinson" - the ship name should be in italics (but not the prefix).
  • "Offshore Malaysia, strong winds from Vamei damaged two U.S. Navy ships in its eyewall." - 'offshore Malaysia' is awkward; the referent for 'its' is slightly unclear. 'Offshore of Malaysia, two U.S. Navy ships in Vamei's eyewall were damaged by strong winds.'
  • "Vamei brought strong winds and heavy rainfall to Johor, as well as to portions of Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, and Selangor; rainfall reached over 200 mm (8 in) in Senai in Johor. " - rewording can take care of the awkward 'in Senai in Johor': 'Vamei brought strong winds and heavy rainfall to portions of Melaka, Negeri Sembilan, and Selangor as well as to Johor, where rainfall reached over 200 mm (8 in) in Senai.'
  • "The rainfall caused a landslide along Gunung Pulai, which killed five people and destroyed four houses." - 'Along Gunung Pulai, the rainfall caused a landslide which destroyed four houses and killed five people.'
  • "Moderate damage was also reported to transportation, as well as to education and health-care facilities." - 'was also reported to' is awkward, and 'transportation' doesn't really stand on its own in this sentence. 'Moderate damage to transportation, education, and health-care facilities was also reported.'
  • "The typhoon is named after a songbird with white feathers, popular to feeders in Macau;" - what does 'popular to feeders' mean? are you going for 'common at birdfeeders' or perhaps 'popular among birdwatchers'?
    • The replacement, "The typhoon is named after a songbird with white feathers, and was contributed by Macau;[1] the name was retired after its usage." reads as though the typhoon....was contributed by Macau(!); 'retired after its usage' could be improved to clarify that it was only used once.
    • "at 1200 UTC", "at 0000 UTC", etc - I believe WP:MOSDATE prescribes colons in times.
    • I'm not going to argue this point endlessly, but I will say this: setting aside the issue of what weather professionals use (it's admittedly relevant, but I want to address your other reasoning), I'm bewildered at the suggestion that MOS isn't specific on this because it doesn't explicitly describe how to handle UTC times - a time is a time. The UTC page itself uses colons on all times.
    • I figured UTC was different. MOS is a guideline, not an official rule, and since the WPTC uses "1200 UTC", I'd rather keep it that way. FWIW, here is a reference supporting our usage of it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
    • "Tropical Storm Vamei weakened quickly as it crossed the extreme southern portion of the Malay Peninsula, and late on December 27 it weakened to tropical depression status before emerging into the Straits of Malacca, based on analysis by the JMA." - as written, the storm weakened...based on analysis by the JMA! Please relocate/rephrase the ending phrase to clarify.
    • "Additionally, the probability for a pre-existing tropical disturbance to develop into a tropical cyclone is between 10–30 percent." - several issues: with 'additionally' you are presenting the probability as an additional factor, rather than merely a statistical prediction based on factors including the ones previously described; wouldn't 'existing' suffice, rather than pre-existing?
    • "the agency issued Stage Red Heavy Rain Warnings, Category–3 Rough Wind Warning, and Rough Sea Warnings." - if the middle item in the list is singular, it needs an article ('a...Warning')
    • "The Malaysian government provided assistance to the affected families for food, clothing, and repairs, totaling up to RM5,000 (2001 MYR, $1,300 2001 USD)." - as written, the sentence doesn't make it clear that the amount is (I presume) an individual allotment. Perhaps 'The Malaysian government provided affected families up to RM5,000 (2001 MYR, $1,300 2001 USD) in assistance for food, clothing, and repairs.'
    • Ref formatting could do with a bit of improvement:
    • Australian Severe Weather ref needs a retrieval date.
    • The Gary Padgett ref needs a publisher.
    • It does appear that his work is at least largely self-published. I see that Padgett is cited in a lot of WP:TROP articles; is there a prior conversation somewhere concerning his qualifications as a reliable source?
    • There isn't a discussion - we've more agreed him to be a good source ever since the project started. We do know him to be a reliable source for tropical cyclone information, as he is cited by NOAA - ([1][2]). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first cite of New Straits Times has a retrieval date but no url; all cites of New Straits Times should list it as a work, not a publisher.
    • The Dybas ref needs wikilinking on the pub date, and needs a retrieval date.
    • The USA Today cite should use cite news rather than cite web.

    Maralia (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the copyedit and suggestions. OK, I simplified the sentence about naming in the lede, as it wasn't particularly important. Regarding the timing, the MOS isn't specific for times that are UTC; FWIW, the rest of the featured tropical cyclone articles do not use a semicolon (simply 1200 UTC), which IIRC is the format used by professionals when writing about tropical cyclones. I clarified the sentence about JMA. I removed "additionally" in the other sentence, though pre-existing is the wording used by the paper it was from, and it emphasizes that a tropical disturbance is needed to exist before it becomes a tropical cyclone. I simplified the warnings sentence. Yea, your suggestion for the assistance makes more sense. I don't know what I should put as the publisher for the Gary Padgett reference. Though I cited it to that site, his summaries appear several places online, though just not in one particular place or published by any particular agency (the bottom of the page implies he self-publishes online). The New Straits Times links are from an online news service provided by my school, so there is no URL available. I changed it to work, I fixed the Dybas ref, and the USAToday link should remain cite web, since it's a website and not a news article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the responses. I have struck through resolved issues above, and left comments about a few remaining ones. Maralia (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Very much in line with other FA grade cyclone articles, in quality, content, and style. A little information on the aftermath would be nice. Coming from a cyclone-prone part of the world, I believe, there was much cleaning up up after the disaster, ideally with the international community involved. Anyways, a lack of that information shouldn't be a barrier in passing this one. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible. The online site that provides info on disasters worldwide, ReliefWeb, turns up no results in a search for "Vamei", and does not list a single source in the database in 2001. The newspaper archive I used listed only 30 hits that even contained the word "Vamei", most of which talking about how it formed so close to the equator. While I'm sure there was some aftermath, there has been none that I can find. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2008 (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/Tropical_Storm_Vamei&oldid=1142602484"