Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Tingting/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:03, 2 May 2009 [1].

Typhoon Tingting edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 19:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
until dissipation near the international date line on July 13 - until it dissipated near to the international dateline
That makes the wording awkward. Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a Twenty day gap from the governor of Guam submitting his request to it being signed off by George Bush which i find strange.
US Government = fail :P Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between warning centers section is that operational or BT data - it should mention both IMO
Would referencing with the BT be OK? Cyclonebiskit 20:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more later Jason Rees (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Cyclonebiskit has adressed my comments and ive had a read over i now Support this articleJason Rees (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
I've fixed the disambiguation link. Thanks for the ref/dab review. Cyclonebiskit 22:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because article has zero references in the lead. This is very bad style. TeH nOmInAtOr (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Umm....There shouldn't be any references in the lead since it's supposed to be a summary of the article, meaning there is no new information requiring a reference. Cyclonebiskit 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, references are discouraged within the lead if the information is already cited in the body of the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've put no new information into the lead, so I don't need references there. Cyclonebiskit 02:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (it may look like a lot, but the article is decent and is close to FA status). I think the biggest problem (but it’s not a huge problem) is the met. history. I feel it is a bit scant on good details. For example, what were its origins? (monsoon trough? ITCZ? Tropical wave?) What meteorological events allowed the typhoon to intensify? (warm waters? Strong anticyclone? low shear?) Be sure to emphasize how favorable the conditions were, or were not, as opposed to mentioning them passing. You mention “further strengthening was anticipated” after you mention its peak, but you don’t say how strong it was forecast to be. That would be a good addition. Why did it eventually turn to the northeast? As you mentioned when the eye formed, when did it dissipate? When/why did the extratropical storm eventually dissipate?

  • ’’ Around that time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert for the storm, classifying it as Tropical Depression 11W at 1200 UTC’’
    • That implies that the TCFA and the first warning were issued at 1200 UTC, which generally doesn’t happen.
Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ Twelve hours after being classified a depression by the JTWC, the JMA upgraded…’’
    • I find it weird to cross the warning centers like that. Since the JMA is gold, I think it’d be better to give the amount of time after JMA labeled it as a depression.
Done Cyclonebiskit 13:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ At 0600 UTC on June 26, the JTWC classified Tingting as a tropical storm’’
    • I suggest adding “also” between “the JTWC” and “classified”. As an overall suggestion, you should put the emphasis on the JMA when it comes to stuff about classification.
Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’ This followed development of outflow in all directions.’’
    • That is pretty unclear, and is a poor way to start a paragraph. Perhaps something like, “As Tingting continued northwestward, it continued to develop outflow in all directions.”
Done Cyclonebiskit 13:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The ridge which was steering Tingting towards the northwest was forecast to strengthen and cause the storm to travel more to the north”
    • This is unclear and awkward. Did the ridge actually strengthen and cause the storm to travel more to the north? If so, avoid the “was forecast”, as the tense stuff makes it confusing. I see it later says “Around this time, the storm also began to turn towards the north”, so see if you can avoid the redundancy and confusion.
Done Cyclonebiskit 15:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”At 0000 UTC the next day,”
    • I assume it means June 28th, but since the previous sentence didn’t mention a date, I would add the date to that for when JTWC upgraded to typhoon.
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”within 95 km (60 mi) of Iwo Jima”
    • Which direction did it pass by the island?
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The next day, the JTWC downgraded Tingting to a tropical storm”
    • Again, bad way to start a paragraph. You need to mention the date.
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”After becoming an extratropical cyclone, Tinting”
    • Be careful with typos. I spot you using “Tinting” instead of “Tingting” three different times.
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”as a strong Category 2 or Category 3 typhoon on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale”
    • I’d avoid calling it a Category 2 typhoon on the hurricane scale. Why not just say the person estimated those specific winds?
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a general comment, all of the damage figures are in 2004 USD, but you don’t specifically mention that anywhere. Maybe when you mention the damage total in the lede, you could put a note saying that all damage figures are in 2004 USD.
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”A total of 300 people evacuated” – really? Was it exactly 300 people?
Done Cyclonebiskit 12:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences of the Preps/impact section don’t mention any locations. Sure, the sub-section is “Marianas Islands and Guam”, but you still need to mention a location. Also, wouldn’t “Marianas Islands and Guam” be redundant? I’m typing this review offline, but IIRC the Marianas Islands include Guam, whereas Guam is a separate territory from the commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Try re-writing the first paragraph of the preps/impact, as it’s confusing jumping between “the islands” and “Guam”. You should also explain what “Tropical Cyclone Condition of Readiness Four” means.
Done Cyclonebiskit 14:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of preps/impact also feels disorganized. You’re jumping around, and since you already mention every island’s peak wind report, why not just say “Tingting produced strong winds throughout the region”, rather than “TS conditions on X, Y, Z, and when it became a typhoon, typhoon conditions on W and V”.
Done Cyclonebiskit 14:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, for the impact, I think you should go island by island, rather than by each type of impact. While it’s nice seeing all of the rainfall totals in one paragraph, I’d rather see the impact from the record-breaking rain on Guam, rather than waiting to see the lesser rain on Saipan and Rota.
  • That’s it for now. The content seems decent in the article. I think it needs some cleaning up. Let me know when you get all of this done, as I might be ready for a support by then. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have one issue with the dissipation of the storm as the JMA doesn't state how it dissipated, it just says that it was last mentioned near -location-. I've changed it so it says that it was last mentioned to the west of the Aleutian Islands. For the impact, do I have to put it island by island? Some islands had little impact and it would make confusing stubby paragraphs. IMO, it's better to keep it the way it is, especially since it's how most articles are laid out. Cyclonebiskit 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Tropical Weather Outlooks from the JTWC and it doesn't say anything other than the pre-Tingting LPA developed out of an area of convection. Cyclonebiskit 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I've gotten most of what you've mentioned above (other then the ones I've commented about). Thanks for the review :) Cyclonebiskit 15:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the dissipation (sort of) through a link Hink showed me on IRC. Hopefully that's most of the issues now. Cyclonebiskit 00:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think it would look best to have preps and impact separated for each of the islands, which is more how Typhoon Pongsona is, and Pongsona is the closest analog to Tingting. I just don't think it's appropriate to lump the islands together, as they're all distinct geographic entities. For the shorter ones, as with Pongsona, they could be merged together, but at least Guam, Saipan, and Rota could probably be better organized as separate paragraphs.
  • As I mostly looked at just the met. history, I haven't gotten too much into the impact. I'm a little worried about the "Bonin Islands" section, specifically that no damage was reported. Well, the source doesn't directly say that - the source didn't know of any damage in the path of Tingting! I'd try finding a local report from there, or at least get another source confirming the lack of damage. Get back to me if you decide to switch up the order of the impact (which I strongly suggest). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I weakly supportoppose, as there is still more work. Watch out for unit consistency in the impact section. If one unit is rounded to 2 digits, then the other one needs to be as well. The writing isn't quite up to par, so even if you keep the format how it is, it needs work. I still think organizing it by each island would be better, since you say each island name a lot of times; Guam is mentioned 12 times in the impact section, vs. 4 for Tinian, 7 for Saipan, and 4 for Rota. Also, in the last paragraph, you mention the Guam death, but that was the first time in 9 lines that you mentioned the island.
    • Due to the lack of sufficient observations on Tinian, the highest sustained winds recorded were suspected to be lower than what they really were. Winds of 56 km/h (35 mph) were recorded several times with gusts to 84 km/h (52 mph).
      • Really, did you have to say that much? That could easily be one sentence, in which it would be much better organized. I suggest you find a pair of outside eyes to see how much you can eliminate. Remember, it's not how many words you can use to say something - it's how concise you can.
    • The highest winds during Typhoon Tingting throughout the Mariana Islands were recorded on Pagan Island where 106 km/h (66 mph) sustained winds were recorded along with a gust of 212 km/h (132 mph)
      • You use the phrase were recorded twice in the same sentence. I would oppose on the writing, but I think the content is decent. Try getting some fresh eyes. I won't point out every writing error, but it needs work. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seeing as there are still some writing problems, I think the article could use more time getting ready. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one Japanese source for Tingting in the Bonin Islands, which I added now :P Cyclonebiskit 23:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "Typhoon Tingting (international designation: 0408, JTWC designation: 11W) was a relatively weak but destructive typhoon which produced record-breaking rains in Guam." "which"-->that
  • "Tingting originated out of a tropical depression "-->Tingting originated from a tropical depression
  • "traveled towards the north"-->traveled northward
  • "breaking both the "
  • "A total of 71 homes were destroyed and hundreds were damaged by the storm throughout the Mariana Islands with total losses amounting to $11.2 million." Several things wrong here: "A total of" is redundant, so but we can't start sentences with numerals, and writing out "seventy-one" is rather laborious to read. "by the storm" is unnecessary as readers will know this by now. Also, the noun + -ing (gerund) structure is ungrammatical. So, try this: "In the Mariana Islands, 71 homes were destroyed and hundreds were damaged throughout the Mariana Islands; total losses amounted to $11.2 million."

That's all I have time for now. These issues were from the lead only. Please go through the rest of the article (or better yet, get somebody else to) and audit for wordiness. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose.

  • What is the JMA? Used in the lead but no link or explanation
Done. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is diffluence? Not wikilinked or explained in first section
Linked Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what this means - it was retired because the name did not represent Hong Kong and China, being that the name was contributed by Hong Kong
The name was retired because it only represented China but since Hong Kong and China are one county, it needed to represent the two together. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That still doesn't mean anything to me. Why did it need to represent China? Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that's all I really know about it, there really wasn't much of a reason. I think they just felt like retiring it. Cyclonebiskit 21:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an appropriate answer. There is a reason given in the article, it just needs to be clarified. You may have to find additional sources that explain the naming conventions. Karanacs (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself agreeing with Cyclonebiskit here. They usually don't give a rationale for retiring storms; it can be presumed that it was a result of the severe damage, but that would be original research. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would agree with you, but the article did list a reason (the name didn't represent China), and I don't understand what that reason meant. Karanacs (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as i am aware it doesnt have too represent China (ie Dolphin 2008)- i think the reason the HKO gave for retiring Tingting was an escuse so they could go around Hongkong and raise awareness of the Tropical cyclone signal system that the HKO use for TCs. Jason Rees (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a lot of wordiness in the article that could be trimmed. That would make the sentences flow a little better. For example (example only) Most of the northern areas of the island received more than 510 mm (20 in) of rain but the southern areas of Guam could easily be changed to eliminate the last part of the sentence "of Guam" for being redundant
  • Watch for consistency in spelling out numbers. For example, when discussing the number of homes destroyed, one sentence uses four, 24, four, 71, and 101. This is not consistent within this little list.
  • I wonder if it would make sense to pull a lot of the rainfall amounts out into a table. Currently, it makes for a very dense paragraph that pretty much lists X island got YY mm (ZZ in) of rain...
There aren't enough rainfall totals to do that. There's already a rainfall map which, IMO, eliminates the need for a table. Cyclonebiskit 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables don't have to be very big, if they are just tucked into the side of the text. My biggest concern there was that the paragraph was extremely dry and difficult to get through because it was jam-packed full of numbers. Generally, a table is a better way to display those things, but I'm open to other ideas you may have for improving the paragraph.. Karanacs (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prose needs a good cleanse. Here are examples from the lead. Can you find someone else to do it?

  • Opening para: can the first "intensity" be removed? It works without, I think, given the subsequent sentence. "a few days"—can't we be more precise? "for two to three days"?
  • "a combination".
  • Why a straight link to "Japan"? Surely pipe it to the "Geography" section in that article.
  • "a record 554.99 mm (21.85 in) of rain fell in a 24-hour span, breaking the daily and monthly rainfall totals for June.—"fell in 24 hours". "totals" should be "the records".
  • "One fatality occurred during the storm as a result of flooding and nine others resulted from rough seas produced by Tingting." Why not bin the last three words? Perhaps smoother with a comma after "flooding". Tony (talk) 16:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Due to my upcoming trip, I wont have access to a computer for roughly two weeks. Because of that, I'm going to have to withdraw this nomination unless someone can fill my spot and make the corrections for the article during my absence. Another possibility would be to allow this nomination to remain open until I return, which I would greatly appreciate. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit 17:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i dont mind keeping an eye on this FAC on Cbs behalfJason Rees (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm encountering enough issues with the prose that to list them here would be counter-productive and only serve to dissuade other reviewers from participating. I've no issue with the sourcing, presentation or the editorial choices made, and I made several minor modifications myself because at a very quick glance I felt this could reach FA status pretty quickly. Closer inspection while doing this unfortunately revealed that the writing needs more in-depth work before the article will be suitable for promotion. I strongly advise going through each section to eliminate redundant language that tends frustrate the reader, who only wants to get to the next piece of information without getting bogged down in sentences that have finished telling them all they need to know. Some random examples: "traveled towards the northwest"; "fairly common"; "located to the south of"; "under Tropical Cyclone Condition of Readiness Four, the lowest level of readiness"; "as Typhoon Tingting approached. As Typhoon Tingting approached..."; "The highest winds during Typhoon Tingting throughout the Mariana Islands" (implicit); "to the northeast of"; "In the span of 24 hours" (perhaps "Within"); "but the southern areas of Guam"; "a total of 287.78 mm"; "over a 30-hour span" ("over 30 hours"?); almost every instance of "a total of" (there are lots). As I say, these are just examples, but they are fairly representative of the rest of the article. Other quibbles (some minor):
    • Mild overlinking. If a term is already linked, in an article this short it probably doesn't need to be again.
    • "With low wind shear and favorable diffluence, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert for the storm." Dangling modifier; the storm had low wind shear and favourable diffluence, not JTCW. In addition, "favorable" sounds odd in this context; it was favorable, so JTCW issued a warning?
    • Pet name or a name for pets?
    • As the article seems to use AmE, "toward" is more common usage than "towards", or so I'm told.
    • Inconsistent use of eastwards / north (sans "wards"), etc.
    • "a counter-clockwise loop though July 10".
    • The {{Clarify me}} template.
    • "Tingting was 150 km/h (90 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 160 km/h (105 mph) 1-minute sustained." I'm assuming that this means the top speed measured over 10 minutes, and that over 1 minute. I think an addition to the "Notes" section might make this clearer.
    • "near Paris, France." Doesn't seem relevant.
    • "Due to the lack of sufficient observations on Tinian, the highest sustained winds recorded were suspected to be lower than what they really were. Winds of 56 km/h (35 mph) were recorded several times with gusts to 84 km/h (52 mph)." Clumsily-phrased. Perhaps just state the recorded speeds, before mentioning that these were suspected (by whom?) to be lower than the actual top speeds due to the lack of sufficient monitoring/observation.
    • Inconsistent use of "Japan Meteorological Agency", "Joint Typhoon Warning Center" and "JMA", "JTWC"; if the abbreviations have already been stated and defined on first use, their use for the rest of the article would be better.
  • Again, these are just random examples that are representative of issues throughout the article. None are irresolvable, but added to those outstanding issues from other reviewers might mean the FAC has difficulty gaining support this time around, especially with the nominator on holiday for another week or so. Steve T • C 11:26, 28 April 2009 (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/Typhoon_Tingting/archive1&oldid=1089083163"