Talk:Cyclone Namu/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" the storm attained Category 2 intensity" - what scale?
- Added. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should probably link it though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole article is inconsistent in its units. It should be metric first, then imperial.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" on the island of Guadalcanal, a village of then-43 people saw only 5 survivors" - I'd rewrite this a tad to "on the island of Guadalcanal, then a village of 43 people, only had 5 survivors."
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link Guadalcanal in the lede.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Overall, schools, buildings, electricity, water supplies, roads, communication systems, forests, and agriculture sustained widespread damage." - where? If Solomons, you should reinforce that somewhere in the 3rd lede paragraph.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" Mudslides and logs destroyed roads" - how did logs do this?
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"for the deaths of at least 150 people" --> "for at least 150 deaths" = more succinct.
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the infobox say $125 million? That total is usually only reserved for actual damage, not including economic losses.
- Forgot that. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wait, you put $100 million there. Wasn't that the economic cost? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea, corrected. 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
"On May 15, 1986, the Fiji Meteorological Service's Nadi Tropical Cyclone Warning Center" - as with other articles I've read, this is way too long to begin the MH. Just say "the Fiji Meteorological Service". In the Atlantic, we only say "the National Hurricane Center". No need to go into such detail that it's a TCWC right away. Add a note if you feel it's necessary, but that's too much right away.
- - I agree, but JR prefers it that way. How strongly do you feel about this? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that its too much straight off the bat and feel that it is better to get the abbreviation out straight away rather than leave readers confused. What you use in the Atlantic is not really relevant here.Jason Rees (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is relevant. They're both warning centers. It works much better in the Atlantic only mentioning the name, and keeping it as short as possible. No need to frontload the amount of information. You can add a note to explain the information, but in prose, it's too long as it is now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel that using the FMS NADI TCWC isnt that long and works a lot better than using just the Fiji Meteorological service if you dont like that then perhaps you need to remember that you supported me using the Fiji Meteorological Services Tropical cyclone Warning centre in Nadi Fiji.Jason Rees (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What is wrong with simply using FMS? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd be fine with that. Check out the Google hits for TCWC Nadi (mostly Wikipedia links, perhaps we should have a discussion about changing this?) versus FMS. BTW, Fiji Meteorological Service even abbreviates it as FMS. And if someone's gonna complain that they're not referring to their warning center, they call it "RSMC Nadi-TCC". I realize that's the department for naming tropical cyclones, but we don't have similar specificity for JMA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Changed :) Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I dont see why you are trying to compare the hits for TCWC Nadi and FMS, since the TCWC designation was removed in 1995 well before the internet really took off.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It was still FMS back in the 80s though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I never said it wasnt FMS in the 80s - i prefer to use TCWC Nadi since it flows better in my opinon and just because the JMA is styled the JMA it doesnt mean that we should do the same for the South Pacific.Jason Rees (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, YE is the GA nominator, so it's partly up to him, and I brought up a discussion on the project talk page, since I strongly feel that FMS works better (being 3 characters versus 9 for TCWC Nadi). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I majorly disagree it flows better, FYI. There is no point in calling it TCWC Nadi. I don't want this GAN to fail becuase of something like this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind Hurricanehink that this is my GAN as well even though i do not feel that the article was not ready for a GAN as not enough research to cover the major aspects has been done. This includes the damage total which keeps getting messed around with and the fact that one of the reports is duplicated several times and contains a better estimate of the death toll than many of the

While you did do the MH and nobody own's articles, as of this writing, I officially nominated this GAN, so this is my GAN. No, plenty of research had been done. It's slightly longer than the 2 SPAC FA's. While Namu is more important than both the 2 others FA, this is GAN not FAC, so the article does not have to be as comprehensive as a FAC. It is 29 kb, which in my opinion is plentifully given that SPAC storms as a whole are non-notable (it only affected 170,000 people after all). This is the second longest SPAC storm article that I know off (after Evan, which was much costlier and extremely recent). Wikipedia articles are not expected to include everything, it is suppose to just be summary. If you think this is short, how long do you expect it to be? And, if it is short, why don't you be bold and expand it if you consider it "your GAN". And no, the damage total is not being messed around, we don't include economical losses for articles in any basin. While I am somewhat open to using EMDAT damage total, it's 20 million, but even that seems a bit low; I think it is one of those instances where EMDAT damage total is a bit low. And the death total is fine IMO, I have seen plenty of sources that go with 150 deaths. We could arguably use EMDAT which goes with 101 deaths, but given the info on exactly how they died, more than 101 people died during the storm. It's not like people come back to life after all :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YE the best death toll i could come up using just what is located within the article was 62, even though you could use the details in reference 1 to expand out how many died and in what situation. I have my doubts about if 150 is right since this by the same authors as ref 1 but not used in the article, researched all of the deaths and came up with a death toll of about 111. I dont expect miracles with the length of the article and do not care about how many kb it is but i do expect to be able to justify the death toll and that takes a lot more research and yes i will help expand it more as long as i am treated with a little bit of respect and not like a piece of chewing gum on the sole of your foot.Jason Rees (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added details from reference 1 and tweaked the death toll. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:06, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"started to monitor a tropical depression that had developed within the monsoon trough in association with Typhoon Lola about 90 km (55 mi) to the north of the Solomon Island: Malaita" - cut "had", add comma after trough, and fix the ending, that's awkward. I'd say "north of Malaita in the Solomon Islands."
- Did the former, and I fought with JR over the latter (he believes it "sounds better"), but ill change it. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dont see how it is awkward when the term Solomon Island is used by the Solomon Island Government itself and save putting redundant wording in.Jason Rees (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But just saying "Solomon Island" could be ambiguously referring to Solomon Islands (archipelago). The country is officially "Solomon Islands" with the "s" on the end. It should be treated as such in the article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I seriously doubt that it matters that it ambiguously refers to one island at the top of the archipelago. I also dont see why i have to stick to the Solomon Islands when the Solomon Island is just as valid and you dont use the official name of the states (ie: USA).Jason Rees (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see why you're bringing in USA in. That's an abbreviation. You're changing the name of the country. You should refer to the country, plain and simple. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I am referring to the country and am not changing the name of a country, i am using a perfectly valid abbreviation that it is even used by the SI Gov at times. Just because you dont like it - it doesnt mean it shouldnt be used.Jason Rees (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Why can't we just mention Malaita? The wikilink can explain where it is, ect. That is what I currently have, so arguing over this further is pointless IMO unless you think there is something wrong with "Malaitia". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wont remove that it is the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center since we need to define which JTWC we are on about.Jason Rees (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there any other Joint Typhoon Warning Centers? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think he may or may not mean the NWPOC, but I'm not 100% sure and likely wrong here. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - It doesnt matter we have been told in FAC's before now to define where the NHC is since we could have NHCs and JTWCs in other regions that we are not aware off.Jason Rees (talk) 21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, we were never told this in FAC's AFAIK. That's what the wikilink is for. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed with YE. Put it in a note if you want to. That's what I do. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Happily removed. Even if they were other JTWC's, who said they can't be from the US? 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

(

" before recurving and moving towards the southwest " --> "before recurving to the southwest"
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During May 17, the United States Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) started to issue warnings on the system and designated it as Tropical Cyclone 33P after the system had developed winds equivalent to a tropical storm" - just say "Joint Typhoon Warning Center". And can you add a comma somewhere? Ditto the subsequent sentence.
- I don't see why I have to put a comma here, ill add a semicolon. I left the following sentences as it is. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd get rid of "it designated..." and change it to "designating", and changing the semicolon to a comma. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"During May 18, the system continued to intensify and developed a broad and ragged eye as it moved towards the southwest, before it was reported as passing over Malaita island at around 1400 UTC.before it passed on Manawai at around 1400 UTC." - just, try fixing it...
- I need to run a mile for this. I did the second, even though JR will argue it's OR. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - "before it passed on Manawai" - should it be "passed over"? And did the storm pass near Malaita island at the same time? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, and it is likely it passed over the island at very similar times, hence the wording "around". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"During May 19, Namu remained at its peak intensity as it slowly moved away from the Solomon Islands and moved across 160°E into the Australian region, before during the next day the system gradually recurved towards the south-southeast while gradually weakening" - split sentence in two, and avoid awkward "before during" construct.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As Namu passed through the Solomon Islands" - does this mean because, while, since, as a result of, etc.?
- Switched to while. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and broadcast by the Solomon Islands Broadcasting Corporation which instituted a 24 hour broadcasting schedule to convey warnings and advisory information" - add comma before "which"
- K. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"by the cyclones " - "cyclone's"
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" that the cyclone's center passed 30 to 40 mi (50 to 65 km) from" - I'd say "that the cyclone passed within 50 to 65 km (30 to 40 mi)."
- Disagreed, but did it anyway
  - You end the sentence with "from" still. Was that intentional? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, (my usual blunder), and it's gone. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" as far north the northern tip of Malaita " - I think a word is missing.
- Correct. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" In all, gusts in some areas " - the first two words aren't needed.
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"caused a maximum wave height" - link this
- To what article? Erick 07? Nvm, I got a link Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Most of the damage caused by Cyclone Namu occurred because of widespread phenomenal flooding as many rivers over-topped their banks" - try rewriting this. A comma would be helpful, but don't just plop it in.
- Better? YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. Try rewriting the whole sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Rewrote. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" due to Namu's rough seas and strong winds caused by Severe Tropical Cyclone Namu" - see the problem?
- Yea, corrected it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There were initially reports of 50 people missing, and the death toll was initially only five,[15] one of whom was a man who drowned." - I don't get it. How many people died on the island?
- 150. You get to it later in the article. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then no need to mention what the initial thoughts were right here. Death tolls usually start out pretty low, until reports come in. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is from RW though, which is a report. I saw news articles mention the same for several days. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's only a preliminary report. Death tolls often don't go up until a few days after a storm, once assessment crews have been through. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Elsewhere, 14 dead bodies were found dead " - glad they weren't zombies.
- Glad they were not either. Fixed :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In Babanakira, 5 people died" - does this have anything to do with Guadalcanal?
- No, this paragraph is about deaths and where they were found.
  - But the rest of the paragraph is about Guadalcanal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moved. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Furthermore, the Lungga, Ngalimbiu, Mberande, and Nggurambusu rivers sustained the worst flood damage" - how can rivers be damaged?
- The river's path got altered probs. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you confirm? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not with LN done according to you. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't get your comment. Does the source confirm that the paths were altered? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should reorganize the impact to have only one Guadalcanal paragraph. It's confusing now.
- I do now. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you clarify Honiara is on Guadalcanal? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's pretty clear if you continue on. 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
" two ships (one was 60 ft (20 m) long and the other was 120 ft (35 m) long)" - avoid parenthesis within parenthesis. Also - " each sunk " should be "each sank."
- Fixed the second and made brackets. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you be opposed to using – ? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have the convert template in there now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The two bridges that connected the city with the island " - what island?
- Guadalcanal. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is Honiara an island? I thought it was already connected with Guadalcanal? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It only was for a while because of Namu, in a normal state, no.
" thus leaving Honiara isolated from the rest of " - I was confused because the lack of an end to the .
- Fixed. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ehh, see the problem now? "The two bridges that connected the city with the island of Guadalcanal were destroyed, thus leaving Honiara isolated from the rest of Guadalcanal" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yea. I trimmed it slightly. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"2,000 of which " - when talking about people, use "whom". "which" is only for objects.
- Good call. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You didn't change it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need to link suburb
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" Schools, buildings, electricity, water supplies, roads, communication systems, forests, and agriculture sustained widespread damage" - you already covered parts of this earlier.
- In the lead. And because you made me change it earlier, it no longer applies
  - Specifically, you previously talked about roads and buildings, and a sentence later in the paragraph says "Mudslides and logs destroyed roads, bridges, water pipes and drainage systems". There is major redundancy still. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid having duplicate sentences in the lede as in the impact. It's just annoying.
- Copyedited somewhat.
  - The previous sentence ("schools, building", etc) is still nearly identical. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the previous sentence is no longer part of the article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In all, villages throughout the entire island group sustained severe damage" - avoid "in all"
- Disagreed, but okay. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"On Sikiana Island, a small island with a few hundred residents, only one house was left standing" - this seems really random next to the other info in the paragraph.
- Moved, but I don't like where it is still. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It'd work better if it wasn't right after - "There were initially reports of 50 people missing, and the death toll was initially only five,[15] one of whom was a man who drowned". Which again proves that sentence isn't worth much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Guess what? That above sentence is gone. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Many villages were also destroyed" - you've said this before. I'll show you exactly:
- "entire villages were destroyed"
- "these waters cut off channels and destroyed coastal villages"
- " In all, villages throughout the entire island group sustained severe damage"
So... find a way to fix. Kthax kbai.
- Removed two of them. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, postal services were closed and telecommunications were disrupted due to the storm; as a result; it was estimated that the former would remain closed for several days." - the "as a result" part seems awkward and unusual.
- Changed to "consequently". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Even though the government requested at first did not request international assistance" - wha?
- Extra word screwed it up and it is gone. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"international aid had arrived via 33 missionaries and evacuated 5 people due to medical reasons" - so missionaries evacuated people?
- Apprently. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the wording also suggests that international aid evacuated people. It's poorly written. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better, worse, or the same? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"costing $500,000" - in Australia dollars?
- Did not say. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Uma in see also?
- It was similar in damage to Namu, devastating similar island group. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you should say it. Right now, it links to Uma, which has nothing in its season article section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added. 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

All in all, pretty good. Just some small issues that can be fixed easily. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for the review as always Hink :D Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
- I strongly feel that there is still a lot out there that could be added to this article, for example These three journals contain a lot of information that need to be used to expand the article. I am trying to rewrite the article and am grateful to Hurricanehink for not failing this GAN yet but my time is limited at the minute so thus i feel it is time for this article to be failed.Jason Rees (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, GA's don't have to include everything, it's is suppose to be a summary. Anyway, this GAN has turned a bit dramatic, and I'd rather worry about other articles than this right now. Therefore, I am withdrawing this GAN. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]