Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Mujigae/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 10 April 2022 [1].

Typhoon Mujigae edit

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rapidly strengthening tropical cyclones heading straight into populated areas seem to have been a recurring theme of the past decade. This one's from 2015 and had its name retired after hitting coastal South China, even managing to spawn tornadoes in Guangdong. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

I'm having trouble verifying the source of some of the images. The first two satellite photographs in the article link to sources that don't display the image. The third one File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg has a dead link and the fourth one File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg links to a generic page. I think it's highly likely that these are NASA images but it should be able to verify with the source links.

Other comments edit
  • The lead looks disproportionately long compared to the length of the article. I would try trimming some detail, making sure it covers only the main points per MOS:LEAD.
  • The article cites sina.com, marked unreliable by Headbomb's script. It also cites The Economic Times (I think this is related to Times of India)? What make these high quality reliable sources according to the FA criteria?

Note, this is not a full source review. (t · c) buidhe 06:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first image has data only going back to 2017 for some reason, not sure if Meow knows where an archive is? The link for the second image, File:Mujigae 2015-10-02 0525Z.jpg, works for me, it's just very zoomed out. AFAICT the source for File:2015-10-03 0300Z.jpg is likely a snapshot taken from approximately this, though I can swap it to File:Mujigae 2015-10-03 0305Z.jpg instead which has a working link that goes directly to the image. For File:Mujigae 2015-10-05 0600Z.jpg, the link should probably be pointing to https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/ but I can't locate the full pass, need Nino Marakot to help me out here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not responsible for images that I did not upload.  🐱💬 11:38, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Meow: I'm referring to commons:File:Mujigae 2015-10-04 0620Z.jpg. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sourcing, Sina republishes content from various news agencies/newspapers, which is why it's marked as unreliable since the source's reliability is equivalent to that of the original source. I'll go modify the citations in a bit to show where said news originated from, to be more transparent. The bit cited to The Economic Times isn't crucial and I've gone ahead and removed it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:40, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with the gov.cn refs – they republish stuff from Xinhua or other ministries and I've used those where I can't track down the original links. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Buidhe, any come back on the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not supporting or opposing. Still needs a proper source review. (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie edit

Reading through and not finding much to complain about. I've copyedited a bit; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "Mujigae came ashore during a week-long holiday (known as a "Golden Week") in lieu of China's National Day,": what does "in lieu of" mean here? Normally it means "in the place of", but that would make no sense here.
    • Replaced with "following" - I've always assumed it had a similar meaning to "off-in-lieu" but it appears I've been mistaken all this while. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "less than 100 were recorded over the past 50 years": we need a date for this observation; perhaps "as of 2016, less than 100 had been recorded...".
    • Reworded this quite a bit since I somehow?? did not see "average annual" twice?? which now makes a lot more sense given EF3+ tornadoes are much rarer than 1 in 5. The paper that this statistic is attributed to was dated to 2015 (can't find it online, unfortunately). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the evening of October 3, 39,103 people in Wenchang had been resettled in 57 shelters": can you rephrase to avoid "...3, 39, 103..."?
  • "Final repairs to the power supply—mostly in Guangdong, where Zhanjiang suffered the most from power outages—were expected to complete in a week.": if nearly seven years later we don't have a source saying when power outages were resolved, I think we should drop this -- saying what the prediction was at that time isn't much help to the reader.

Overall this seems solid enough. It's hard to make lists of statistics engaging, and I don't expect sparkling prose for those paragraphs; I think this just about gets over the line. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah edit

  • I would believe this to be relevant:
  • Name formatting in sources should be consistent
Support on criteria 1C NoahTalk 16:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley edit

  • "earlier in its existence it impacted the Philippines as a developing tropical cyclone, and later on it brought heavy rain to parts of Mainland Southeast Asia." I doubt whether you need this as it is covered below and the main impact was in China. It is also ambiguous whether "later on" means later than China or the Philippines. I found the frequent jumping around in the lead confusing and would prefer a chronological treatment.
  • You give details of effects in the Philippines - including strangely someone killed by a snake bite - but you should also give total dead.
    • I included a total in the lead – I can add another in the body if that's what you're looking for; the absolute minimum is 4 but that's ignoring the "partial and unofficial" report which has another 3 dead (though whether that includes 1 of the other 4 is impossible to tell). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "warnings for storm surge and large waves that same day" surges?
    • I've rarely if ever seen "storm surges" used in such a context – I suspect it's because the whole surge is technically one event tethered to one storm. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale". What speed?
  • "from Force 11 to 14 on the extended Beaufort scale" Ditto.
  • The article seems to me unbalanced. The vast bulk of the effects were in China, where $3.7 billion losses occurred in Guangdon out of a total of $4.3 billion, yet the section on Guangdon is only slightly longer than the ones on other areas, where you report very minor effects such as slight injuries and minor transport delays. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll get to this next weekend - been taking a bit of a break recently due to IRL stuff. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Make that next weekend, life is coming at me fast and I am woefully unprepared. It may take me some time to look for more RSes that give specific details on Guangdong impacts but I should be done by the end of the month, at worst first week of April. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink edit

  • Be sure to link Guangdong in its first usage in the lead.
  • "Brief power outages were reported and ports and schools were closed." - I'm not a fan of the passive voice, and all of this in the same sentence implies that the schools and ports were closed because of the power outages. If the power outages were brief and not that significant, then I don't think that's needed for the lead.
    • Removed that and combined what's left with previous sentence. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "223 injured" - be sure to use non-breaking spaces for all units that aren't converted.
  • The met history might be able to be expanded using journals such as this, this, and this
  • Several incidents of flash flooding were reported, with 50 barangays inundated with up to 3 ft (0.91 m) of water - I'd specify what a "barangay" is. Also, make sure metric units go first, both here and throughout the article.
  • "while another from Bongabon municipality was killed by a snake bite" - what does this have to do with Mujigae? I could see if it was a snake on a plane full of evacuating people.
    • Honestly no idea – the news sources say it was related to Mujigae, so I've listed it as such. Couple of scenarios I can think of are that the snake was rattled by the cold, wet weather and bit the unfortunate person, or bad weather or landslides prevented the person from seeking timely medical assistance at a hospital. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making Mujigae the strongest typhoon to make landfall in China in the month of October since 1949." - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the "since 1949" bit is just when accurate records start, and not when there was a stronger October typhoon.
    • That seems likely but I'm loath to remove it without a source – China has other records that go back as far as 1893, though I suppose only 1949 and later are "reliable" in the sense that CMA has reanalysed those seasons. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice you using m/s in the China section, but nowhere else in the article. Most TC articles don't use m/s, because it's not widely used by the public, and instead we just use km/h and mph. If you want to keep the m/s, then the entire article should have that as well.
    • China likes using m/s for some reason... just went and hid it so it only shows km/h and mph. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tripped an electrical substation" - is tripped the right term? I'm not sure
    • I just got rid of that – I can't remember which source I found that in, there's some chance it was in a source for elsewhere and I remembered wrongly or I mistranslated something. If I find it in one of the sources further below I'll add it back in where appropriate. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The strongest winds were recorded in Bobai County, where winds gusted up to Force 12 on the Beaufort scale" - how strong?
  • "Ahead of the storm, train services between the island and the mainland were suspended from October 2 to 5" - there's no train service connecting Hainan to the mainland, but there are ferries. Double-check this.
    • There actually are train services between Hainan and the mainland, albeit the train cars are carried across the Qiongzhou Strait by ferries. (Personally I thought they used undersea tunnels – this is far more interesting.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good stuff! I knew China was planning on building a tunnel or a bridge, but I didn't think train ferry was an option! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Typhoon Signal No. 3 was raised from the evening of October 3 till morning on October 5" - "till" doesn't seem appropriate
  • "The combination of Mujigae and a cold front brought up to 100 mm (3.9 in) of rain to mountainous regions in the provinces of Quảng Ninh, Lạng Sơn, and Cao Bằng." - this should be specified it's Vietnam
  • No impacts in Cambodia or Laos?
    • As far as I can find it was typical heavy rain. Their Typhoon Committee member reports don't pay any special attention to Mujigae, and local news is limited to pre-event forecasts of heavy rain – no mention of landslides, flash floods, crop damage, or anything like that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In all, it's a pretty good article! The coverage in China was thorough and well-written, which is important since that's where impacts were greatest. I don't think any of the comments should be too difficult to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • The damage figure in the infobox doesn't match the text
    • The US$4.3 billion total does...? China alone has US$4.3 billion while the Philippines has only US$1.03 million, and I don't want to simply sum them to get US$4.301 billion for fear of false precision. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what you have presented currently as the figure is known to be not correct, since it represents only China. Why not address this as was done with fatalities? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "disturbed weather that formed just east of the Philippines on September 29" - text says Sept 30
  • "fallen trees, landslides, and collapsing buildings accounted for most of the fatalities" - source?
  • Some of the claims in See also warrant citing
  • There appear to be a number of scholarly works on this topic not currently cited, eg [2][3][4]. How was it decided what sources to include?
  • FN1: the link provided returns "no data available"
  • In what cases are you include publication location?
  • Why spell out BBC and not CNN?
  • FN38 is missing agency
  • FNs 39 and 40 have different website formatting. Ditto FNs 41 and 46, check throughout
    • Fixed 39 and 40. For 41 and 46, the difference arises because 41 is an article from Xinhua republished by gov.cn (original article can't be found on xinhuanet.com anymore), while 46 is published directly on xinhuanet.com. Do I change |work=Xinhua to |agency=Xinhua here or something? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would suggest treating Xinhua as a work throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • How have you verified that the state-run agency reports are accurate? See WP:RSP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KN2731 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: sorry for the long delay; I'm afraid I'll have to withdraw the FAC at this time since I don't see myself having the time nor energy to continue working on this for at least the next month or so, and I don't want this to drag on any further. My deepest apologies to all the reviewers who went out of their way to look over the article; your feedback is still very much appreciated and I'll still try to implement all suggested changes despite this no longer being at FAC. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very great shame, as it seemed to be coming along nicely. But these things happen, and RL does throw up its slings and arrows. I shall archive it, but I hope to see it back here sooner rather than later.
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/Typhoon_Mujigae/archive1&oldid=1082025125"