Talk:1992–93 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

1992–93 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 10, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tropical cyclone scales#Comparisons_across_basins|scales]] The anchor (#Comparisons_across_basins) has been deleted by other users before.
[[tropical cyclone scales#South-Western Indian Ocean|tropical cyclones]] The anchor (#South-Western Indian Ocean) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1992–93 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The 1992–93 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season lasted longer than normal, with the first storm Aviona forming on September&nbspo;27 and the final storm Konita not dissipating until May 7." see something wrong here with the non-breaking space? :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" Cyclone Colina formed and struck Réunion, which damaged houses and crops." how many? and any deaths? ~~it seems odd you mention it without giving any number of homes/crops damaged.~~ After reviewing it further, could you mention the 14 deaths instead of the damage? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for pulling a TA and writing the lede before finishing the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In mid-February, Tropical Storm Finella brought locally heavy rainfall to Réunion, reaching 1,074 mm (42.3 in) along the island's east coast and causing minimal rainfall along the southern coast." why mention it caused minimal rainfall along the southern coast if it was so minor? This article is about the season after all. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To highlight the unusual rainfall total. It's interesting IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mention Ionia's impact in the lead. You're eager to put stuff for Colin and Finella, but not Ionia. Do you hate that name or something? :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, didn't know about the deaths when I wrote the lede. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did ENSO have any effect on the season? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't have confirmation either way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"in the Australian region." what's that? I know, but some may not :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" In addition, the JTWC estimated the system attained 1 minute sustained peak winds of 120 km/h (75 mph) on September 28, the equivalent of a minimal hurricane. " could you mention this before it was named? Seems weird not being in order. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it'd be more confusing mentioning the JTWC peak before it was named. It is slightly weird, but the storm wasn't named operationally until after the JTWC thought it was a hurricane equivalent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" A circulation developed within the system on January 13 about 400 km (250 mi) southwest of Diego Garcia, and at that time it became a tropical disturbance." Delink Diego Garcia given you link it in a previous section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Dessilia produced wind gusts of 98 kilometres per hour (61 mph)." why is kmph spell out? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coding error :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any legit impact from Fella? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the newspapers, LN, or Google. Mind you, the rainfall was heaviest in the peaks, not in the civilized part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" It was a small system, just 100 km (62 mi) from the Madagascar coast when it attained tropical storm status." round to the nearest 5 km. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"After passing about 50 km (31 mi) north of Juan de Nova island, " ditto. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

" which was tied for the strongest system in the southern hemisphere in the cyclone year" what's that? I know what it is, but others amy not. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00

49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"Around that time, the convection began to wrap into the center," convection doesn't usually warp into the center, it wraps around the center. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wraps into the center as well. That's what rainbands are. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"After the subtropical depression dissipated, there were three additional depressions before Tropical Cyclone Colina developed on January 11." Any info about them? Or do you what the reader to not know anything about them cause they were boring? :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, nothing from GP, GN, or LN :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colina

Do we have any evidence outside of EMDAT, that Colina did 14 deaths? I note that Reunion in their summary of the system say none while FIRINGA is saying that there was two deaths.Jason Rees (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some research i found this which may be from the Government of Reunion which gives a bit more credit to the two deaths.Jason Rees (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the EM-DAT ref? That's very recent, and is generally considered reliable. Isn't it possible that some source didn't notice the other 12 deaths? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the EM-DAT ref is that we have 3 sources including the Reunion Government, telling us that it is wrong in this case.Jason Rees (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not saying it's wrong. They're just saying the storm killed two. It could be two who drowned from high surf, and the remaining 12 might've been from electrocutions or something. But we have a reliable source backing up the 14, so I'm putting it back in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are trusting EMDAT to be right far too much here, when we have 3 reliable sources including the Reunion Government backing up the idea that there are only two dead. The MFR report tells me that there was no deaths which bearing in mind, it was probably written about a year after the system lends weight to the idea that there wasn't too many deaths on the island. The Fringa and Reunion Government tells us that there were 2 deaths on the island which sounds about right too me when i bear in mind the MFR report.Jason Rees (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could have ten sources from when the storm was active saying one thing, but historical perspective can change. My argument is that the Reunion government could have used some news source that only mentioned two deaths, whereas EM-DAT is an active disaster database. Hurricane Audrey was found much later on to have had many more deaths, based on census records and personal stories. We have it reliably backed up that the storm caused either 0, 2, or 14 deaths. Given that 14 is the highest, and the source is reliable, I think we should go with the 14. There's no way 12 people just didn't die. In any event, I emailed EM-DAT to hope to get more clarification. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I could see using 2, I do question how 12 ppl came back to life. Deaths are different from damage totals, because unlike damage totals, were they are often lowered later on, deaths toll (unless they were counted twice) usually only rise. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And those people would have to have been counted seven times. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]