Jump to content

Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dunkleosteus77

[edit]
When you say it was coined by Kerry Emanuel, how exactly did he coin it? Did he say it in a symposium or did he write it in an article (which you should cite)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the source and several others say he did coin it but don't actually reference when he did so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then look through different sources, someone should know   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got the dashes, as well as the issues mentioned above. Not necessarily GA-related but do you think that the article ought to include records for extratropical storms? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, it studies all storms, not just tropical cyclones, so yes (and that's GA related, criteria 3a)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like. I'll need to wait until this afternoon before I can work on including these, though (and will probably put them into an "extratropical" subsection). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I began writing that section, but from consulting these and other sources I got the impression that paleotempestology is a term mainly used for the tropical storm research and not for non-tropical storm analysis. There are apparently different techniques and different results involved. So still a little uncertain if this page would be the correct one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the way you're juxtaposing it, you're saying that if paleotempestology were a better funded field, then we would've prevented 8,000 people from dying in the Galveston hurricane. Also, everything you need to say is already in "The historical record in many places is too short (one century at most) to properly determine the hazard produced by tropical cyclones, especially the rare very intense ones" you don't need to list out the greatest hits. "there is concern that man-made global warming will increase the intensity of tropical cyclones and the frequency of strong events by increasing sea surface temperatures" don't really understand how this connects, this is just sort of a fact thrown in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? In my experience people don't get research funded just out of curiosity. There has to be some practical value, in most cases. I dunno about the AGW sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t see how that’s related, but the 2nd paragraph says everything you need, so as far as I’m concerned, the rest of that section is page filler   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't agree. Without it, the article loses any practical relevance to people who aren't tropical cyclone experts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to know a 1970 Bangladesh cyclone killed 300,000 for this article, if someone wants to know all of those specific stats, they can go read the parent article tropical cyclone, or the cyclone's individual article. All we need for this one is that these storms are dangerous, and that's it. Typhoon Haiyan's death toll is just fluff, and you have more detail on all these storms than on the actual subject paleotempestology. I'm asking for a second opinion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know I just realized that it took 3 months for this review to get started so getting a second opinion is probably gonna take a long while   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunkleosteus77: I've put requests for a second opinion on the tropical cyclone, geology and meteorology talk pages, perhaps that will speed this up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the reviewer that the first paragraph of "Rationale" is extraneous. In fact, I believe the first two sections should be combined into one (remove the paragraph about examples of deadly/damaging storms), and call it "Development". That would cover the etymology, where the term came from, and why we needed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented this change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are confounding factors is worthless because there is not a single field without confounding factors   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean they oughtn't be listed, especially when there are several academic papers dedicated to just this question. That would warrant listing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, you're supposed to list them. You don't just say "There are confounding variables" and then move onto something else   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I got it. I've put in "tsunamis" as confounding factor in the lead (there are some more but they are less important and only worthy of a mention in the article text). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Marine foraminifera however are not" however is an interruptor so it's "Marine foraminifera, however, are not". And "and in addition the same ridge" in addition is also an interruptor   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put them in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a bunch of other places you need commas, just glossing over I see "...at Lake Shelby in Alabama a return..."
Hrm. I think there the presence or not of a comma would be considered a style matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put a comma between the subject and predicate parts of the sentence. So, "in an alternative interpretation the US Atlantic coast..." → "in an alternative interpretation, the US Atlantic coast..."
What does position mean? Does the recording site have to be at a 30° angle to the paleostorm or something?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It principally means that the site needs to be the exact landfall location. Being 30km away from it can already negate the evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of obvious. Why would you record data 30 km away from the actual site?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:34, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, sites suitable for obtaining paleotempestology records are not found along the entire length of the coastline. And depending on the properties of the site, they might only track storms approaching from a certain direction, at a certain speed etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's important information to put down   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put some of this into the "Problems" section; do you think part of it should be moved up? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buh. When I wrote my previous comment I had some sentences in mind which could be moved up but now after three weeks I've forgotten which. Do you know of any that could be helpful farther up? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't actually gotten to the Problems section yet, but looking over it, you shouldn't move any sentence up because they don't clearly explain anything. You just need to say what you said earlier "Generally, sites suitable for obtaining paleotempestology records are not found along the entire length of the coastline, and depending on the properties of the site, they might only track storms approaching from a certain direction, at a certain speed etc." in exactly those words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did a rewrite here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
put a definition of lithology so we understand how it relates to what you're talking about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You just explained all of that in the preceding section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:10, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding section only discusses the determination techniques, not the information they provide. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s already stated that they’re “used to estimate the past hazards from tropical cyclones”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's much too generic to be the only part speaking of intensity determinations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then explain relevance in Overwash deposits, you don't need to fracture it off into a sub-subsection. Just explain where it's most appropriate, don't lump off information and throw it somewhere else   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BC and AD are religious (Before Christ and Anno Domini/The Lord's Year) so do not use those   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's actually a problem; certainly MOS:BCE does not mention any such preference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should not say "In the early Common Era"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, is there an alternative wording? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a date range attached to that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like all there is is for much of the first millennium Common Era. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then just say the first millenium or first millennium AD   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:15, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a negative correlation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why do you say paleo instead of palaeo?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:RETAIN, you should use American English, otherwise you'd have to move the page from Paleotempestology → Palaeotempestology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. I don't think that RETAIN is usually based off of the article title, as different policies apply to titles than to article content. For what it's worth the last version pre-expansion here seems to discuss more BrEng regions than AmEng ones but doesn't seem to have a specific spelling besides. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because the title is in American English, it is clear that the original variety of English used was American   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:06, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not really sure that this is how RETAIN works. Article titles are based off of WP:COMMONNAME considerations; one would expect RETAIN to say that the title's spelling conventions apply if it did in fact require consistency. Also, RETAIN is not part of the MOS criteria that are specified in Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of policies not directly stated in the criteria, but we still adhere to them (I still don't understand why BR because you're just creating more work for yourself)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Aside the fact that RETAIN is not a policy and it's unclear that it would be influenced by the title (which as said is governed by different policies), it is still not part of the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just be sure to move the page after the review closes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be the correct idea. Per WP:COMMONNAME the title has to reflect the most common spelling, not the in-page one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So if you want to keep the American spelling, use American spelling   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the variation of English used in the article is unstandardized   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so earth-shattering of a request. Stop stonewalling and just pick one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Earth-shattering or no, it's still not part of the GA criteria and I don't feel comfortable enough with spelling differences to do a wholesale change of the article text. Anyhow, the title should stay at Paleo- per WP:COMMONNAME. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well if the problem is you can't be bothered to, I'll just do it for you. Since you said that paleotempestology is more common than palaeotempestology, and the title will be using American English, the article will default to American English. If you insist the article title must be in American English, it makes no sense why you also insist the article be in British English when there is nothing inherently British about the topic yet it apparently has ties to American English   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to specify
Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still gotta do this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The source does not bother to define the concept. I am thinking that removing the word may be the correct solution. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all what the sentence is saying. Right now you've defined that "such a behaviour" has caused by a northward shift and then you say the same behavior also causes a southward shift   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redid this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does the source define the Little Ice Age? There're different timeframes used by different people. The way you've left it is too vague   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the last 600 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So did you mean 1420–2020 or did you mean 1250–1850?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The exact text is with decreased hurricane intensity and increased frequency, during theLittle Ice Age (~600 cal years B.P. to present) [Lane et al., 2011;Brandon et al., 2013]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should say "1350 to present during the Little Ice Age"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, you shouldn't directly say that paleotempestology is limited to only tropical storms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article does not say it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Palaeotempestology is the study of past tropical cyclone activity"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Buh. I had forgotten about that sentence. Since the source endoses it, I guess we can leave the "only for TCs" part of the definition stay. That would probably mean that most of the non-TC section should go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still good info to have off to the side. You should keep it there, as long as all mentions of non-tropical past cyclones are contained within that one section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be very manageable, though - how do you set the balance between too much coverage and too little? Writing out a detailed discussion would be hard, many difficult to search sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You already have it. It's there. I read it. It's a fine section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is unduly weighted towards a single place. And I am not convinced that it can be resolved without an unreasonable amount of effort or without growing beyond proportion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what other places would you absolutely need to include? Bear in mind that there are some mentions of non-tropical storms scattered through the article (or at least I think so) like "A database of tropical cyclones going back to 8,000 BP has been compiled for the western North Atlantic Ocean" and "typhoon tracks tend to shift north (e.g. Amur Bay)". It wouldn't be right to just cut out all non-tropical storms entirely, but I would be okay with extreme marginalization of that topic   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, these two sentences both refer to tropical systems. The problem in general is that either we list all non-tropical records or none (unless someone wants to read through all the relevant literature in order to come up with an arbitrary list; I don't volunteer) and I think that "none" would be the correct number. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to read and digest every single paper since it's not the main main focus, you really could just list out some (not even all) places. So you could just reword what you already have "Palaeotempestological research has less frequently been done in higher latitude non-tropical storms, such as in the British Isles, France, and the Mediterranean. Increases in storm activity...[all the stuff you already have]" If the North Pacific and Atlantic are considered tropical, then I imagine the non-tropical areas are just simply the Mediterranean Sea, Bering Sea, the North Sea, and various other smaller seas around Greenland, Alaska, and Northern Canada, and maybe even off the southern coast of Australia. If you want to add more, you can, but it's really not necessary. What you have is good   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but if that's so Dezileau et al. is pretty much the only source usable for this as most others don't reference "paleotempestology" at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, Record duration in years before present should specify AD or BC. I also don't really understand what the number's supposed to mean, because for one you put 1,000 and in Conclusions you wrote about the years AD 1200, 1831, and 1848 and the 50s and 70s   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Record duration" is for the timespan that the record covers, not a point of time - that's why it says "Record duration in years before present". Unless it is specified otherwise. A record that lasts 1,000 years for example could go back to 1000 AD if it was taken in 2000. The end date is not usually relevant as it only adds a rounding-level error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really confusing way of recording time. It would be much better to put a timespan or, if not possible, a starting date   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it is supposed to be a timespan. Perhaps a clarification of the text is necessary? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what you're trying to say. When you just say "1,800" do you mean "1800 BP to present"?
No; I've made another attempt. The date is not "X to present" because not all records end at "present"; this is another reason why I don't like the idea of forcing this value into a Procrustean bed that one date unit would be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the duration, how is it that you don't have the rough start and end dates? You calculate duration by subtracting the start date from the end date. It'd be like saying "The Mesozoic lasted 150 million years" which is really a useless piece of information where you're trying to place it relation to other events. It's more helpful to say it lasted from 225–65 million years ago, and yes those aren't the exact dates, and that's also the reason why that's not the exact duration. When it comes to radiocarbon dating, you are not looking for exact, you're just trying to get an idea of how old something is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most sources are somewhat cagey about defining what their end date is. Sometimes one could assume that the study date is the end date, but we'd be dancing on the line of WP:OR in some cases. Start date is better although there is often some uncertainty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the start date with error values is more accurate than the range, and that's a safe assumption to make so it is not OR   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That still leaves the problem of the end date, and the first few sources I checked only speak of a record duration not of a start date much less of an end date. And honestly, I don't think that this change of the table parameters is part of the GA review process at all. Not every potential article improvement is within the scope of the GA review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you just put the start and end dates in the Conclusion box, which is fine   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BP is defined as years before 1950. This is always the definition   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:52, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in the aforementioned clarification, but I don't quite see the benefit of using only one format. To me this just looks like make work, especially as I can't find a guideline requesting it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because it gets hard to keep track of what you're saying if you keep switching from 12 BP to 1938 AD randomly. It's especially unhelpful in the list when you're comparing dates, and it also screws up the sorting based on chronological order. For example, it would be extremely unhelpful to say "The French and Indian War started in AD 1754 and ended in 187 BP"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:48, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last comment. Currently the article fails criteria 1a, and it's really not a Sisyphean task as you're making it out to be. You have all the dates, you just need to quickly convert them to a different calendar. It shouldn't even take you 5 minutes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Look, 1a does not require any particular formatting of dates. The point of a GA review is to see whether the criteria are satisfied, not a list of every possible improvement that could be done. The list cannot be made entirely sortable, anyway, because not all of the items on it have the same date basis (compare the Valdosta item with the Great Blue Hole entry), a lot of dates would read like nonsense if it was done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ man I don't understand why you decide to stonewall on literally the easiest of comments to resolve. It's makes 0 sense to switch between different calendar systems, and is done by exactly 0 people because as I said it makes 0 sense and is actually a very serious detriment to understanding the material. It'd be like saying "Napoleon was exiled in AD 1813 but escaped only a couple years later in 137 BP" which is demonstrably awful. If it's so difficult, then I'll just do it for you then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

[edit]

Thank you for tackling such an article! The more science-y articles can be tricky to get right, so I really appreciate your work. I saw the request for a second review, so here I go.

  • "caused by tropical cyclone rainfall in trees or speleothems" - I appreciate the link to the last term, but this is a totally foreign word to most people. Given how short the lede is, you could probably explain the cave connection to speleothems
    Added a parenthetical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From these deposits one can then infer the occurrence rate of tropical cyclones – typically the stronger events are the most easily recognizable ones – and sometimes also their intensity, by comparing them to deposits left by historical events. " - can you change the "one" to something more encyclopediac, like "researchers can then infer", or something? Also, the "typically the stronger events" feels like it should go after "and sometimes also their intensity", since you already say that the stronger events.
    Rewrote this to use passive voice, as I don't think that narrowing it down to "researchers" is well supported. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that in the Gulf Coast and in Australia" - Australia has a gulf coast. Did you mean the Gulf of Mexico coast, by chance?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Dnkleosteus77, can you find out why the term is named the way it is? Paleo of course it the prefix, tempest meaning storm, I guess?
    That's almost certainly correct but the only source I can find which makes it explicit is this blog. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Couldn't you just say that the prefix -paleo is Latin (or something) for X, and tempest is a name for a storm. That should be easily citeable. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am concerned a bit about WP:OR; as I know from volcanology toponyms, sometimes the obvious meaning isn't the correct one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Katrina's damage is $125 billion btw
    Corrected this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other parts of the world, a 1970 cyclone killed 300,000 in Bangladesh;[7] Japan in 2004 was hit by 10 typhoons and in 2005 five separate cyclones hit the Cook Islands in a short timeframe" - feels like a comma is missing
    Added a semicolon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elsewhere, the record often goes back less than half a century." - this might've been true when the book came out (2001), but worldwide TC recordkeeping goes back to at least 1950. Indeed, later you say "while elsewhere it is usually confined to the last 130 years."
    I've cut that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and only a small number of hurricanes classified as category 4 or 5 – the most destructive ones in the Saffir-Simpson scale" - in or on?
    "On". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Overwash deposits in atolls, coastal lakes, marshes or reef flats are the most important palaeoclimatological evidence of tropical cyclone strikes; when storms hit these areas currents and waves can overtop barriers, erode these and other beach structures and lay down deposits in the water bodies behind barriers." - this is a rather lengthy sentence that would be better served being split in two, and with a few additional commas
    I've split this one in two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with sieving, laser-dependent technologies" - ?
    Sieving as in filtering by size. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not familiar with the word, and other readers might not either. Could you link it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although non-storm related salinity variations caused e.g. by droughts or non-storm related entry of water are a potential limitation of this method." - the "caused e.g. by droughts" feels like it could be written stronger without the e.g.
    I am a little uncertain what "written stronger" means here? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a long sentence, and I had to read it a few times to understand its full meaning. It's not a huge deal, but it stood out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a rewrite; is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "such as e.g. vegetation cover." - similarly as before, I think you can remove the "e.g." here
    Removed it as "such as" already states that there is more than one reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " for example, at Lake Shelby in Alabama a return period of once every 318 years was determined for storms with windspeeds of over 54 metres per second (120 mph)[38]–73 metres per second (160 mph)" - why the two wind values? Also, most meteorological articles use km/h instead of m/s, because it's more commonly used around the world, even though m/s is the scientific standard
    That's because it's important that only storms with winds of such intensity show up in the record. mph because it lies in the USA, where that unit is used to measure storm intensity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I'm talking about km/h here being used. Also, you say windspeeds over "54 m/s". Is that the return period of 318 years, or is the windspeeds over "73 m/s" the 318 year return period? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done on the km/h thing but I don't understand the second question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sentence appears to contain an error, or some additional windspeed. Taken in total, the sentence mentions Lake Shelby, the 318 year return period, and then two different wind speeds. Why are there two wind speeds listed here? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because the source isn't itself sure whether the threshold value - that is, the minimum windspeed a hurricane needs to have before it shows up in the Shelby record - is 54 or 73 metres per second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The source isn't sure? If that's the case, then that needs to be written in the text. Right now it's confusing having the two wind values, and there is no implication of uncertainty in the wind value. I was gonna suggest just say "with winds speeds of over 120 mph", since that would include storms of 160 mph, but apparently that might be wrong. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rewritten this to more closely reflect the source disagreement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "might be" feels a little wishy-washy. Can you write that part to make it more proper and factual. Is the 318 year return period for hurricanes in general? The 143 mph doesn't make as much sense as 120 mph or 160 mph. Is it just for "intense hurricanes" in general? Sorry to be picky, but it seems presumptive to say "The storms in the Lake Shelby record have windspeeds of over 190 kilometres per hour (120 mph)", since the "have windspeeds" implies that it is measured. Perhaps say something like "The observations from Lake Shelby suggest a return period of 318 years for hurricanes with winds of at least 120 mph." There isn't a huge difference between 120 mph and 143 mph (C3 vs C4), and we've seen storms like Katrina, Ivan, Frederic, Opal, that are Cat 3 vs 4, but were all very different storms (still major hurricanes tho). Something just feels off w that sentence, sorry again to be picky. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    318 is the return period for hurricanes intense enough to generate an overwash deposits. Because no historical storm including Ivan has generated an overwash deposit, scientists assumed that the storms recorded there must be stronger than Ivan's 120mph. This source attempted to estimate the mean strength of such storms to get a more precise assessment than "stronger than Ivan" and concludes that 64m/s is a more likely cutoff point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really getting that from what's in the article. Could you explain how they figured out the return period, using Ivan as a reference if needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a sentence to explain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better. Double check the last sentence. I'm not sure if there's something missing, or if you just forgot to capitalize "based on geological considerations". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Capitalized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aside from oxygen isotope ratios,[57] tree rings can also record information on storm-caused plant damage or vegetation changes[68] such as thin tree rings due to storm-induced damage to a tree canopy and saltwater intrusion and the resulting slowdown in tree growth ("dendrotempestology"[69]).[67][70] " - I'm not a fan of how this is referenced, having the one in the quotation and then after the parenthesis.
    Cut this one apart. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A database going back to 8,000 BP " - you link to BP the oil company here
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Gulf of Mexico, palaeoproxy records go back five millennia[22] but only a few typhoon records go back 5,000–6,000 years." - maybe clarify that typhoon records here refer to the WPAC?
    Added a note,a s I couldn't think of a good way to work it in otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also in that sentence, you use "palaeoproxy records" for the only time in the article without explaining what it is. I suggest tweaking it more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just cut that word, as it didn't add anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A north-south anti-correlation has also been found in West Asia between the South China Sea and Japan." - anti-correlation? Can you simplify pretty please?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, it's still kinda confusing, and I'm not sure what you're going for here, or how it relates to the subject matter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed it a bit more, but I don't see how it can be made clearer. It's a research finding made using this technique, hence the relevance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is much better written! Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole section "Influence of long-term temperature variations" is interesting, but how related is it to paleotempestology?
    Because it is the only technique that allows us to empirically predict the effects of anthropogenic global warming on tropical cyclone activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch in general for overlinking

The article is in decent shape, but it seems to have problems with the focus of the subject matter, being overly jargon-y, and complicated/lengthy sentence structures. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Answered some issues and will check for overlinking. A general sentence structure cleanup will need to wait a few days, I suspect. Hurricanehink, can you take a look at the ENGVAR issue flagged above? Part of the reason I am dragging my feet on this is that I am ESL and are not always certain what variant of English I am writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more commas where I felt they were missing, and replied to a few points, but thanks for replying to my comments so quickly. I'll add my thoughts in ENGVAR's comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunkleosteus77:, I'm content with the changes that Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs) has made to the article. I believe the article passes the GA criteria, but as I'm the 2nd reviewer, I don't want to unilaterally pass it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene

[edit]

Nice article to read! A few late comments:

  • The sentence that cyclogenesis is poorly understood links to a 2009 paper. This needs a more recent source as there undoubtedly has been a lot of progress since. Maybe it is still poorly understood, but a more recent source is needed to support that statement.
    Good point. I am not sure if I have a source ready for this ... from reading Google Scholar I get the impression that many aspects are still unclear but that's not a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same about the cites around insurance. Sources from 20 years ago cannot be used with a present tense. Either change the tense, or use a newer source.
    Eh, I don't really think that this has changed over time and using past tense implies that they no longer are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The English language has that intermediate tense between past and present: the present perfect, which should work here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the subsection occurance rate, writing out one storm instead of 1 storm allows for an immediate distinction between the intensity number and frequency. I've always learned to write numbers under twenty full-out, except when the number is followed by a unit or denotes a category.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused by the mention of the MWA in relation to South-Korea. Wasn't that episode mainly restricted to the Atlantic ocean? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging by e.g doi:10.1002/joc.6506 it's not an universal opinion that it was limited to the Atlantic Coast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1&oldid=948714705"