Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)

Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) 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.

Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002) is part of the 2002 Pacific typhoon season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 18, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
December 2, 2012	Good article reassessment	Kept
January 4, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).
	The possible merging of this article has been discussed by editors of the WikiProject.

Hong Kong Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

Attention needed (60)

...needing expert attention (4) • ...without infoboxes (21)

Collaboration needed

Recommend topic

Improvement needed

GA-Class articles (60) • B-Class articles (291)

Cleanup needed

C-Class articles (1,052)

Image needed (348)

Destub needed

Start-Class articles (5,473) • Stub-Class articles (6,695)

Deorphan needed

...orphans

Page creation needed

Requested articles

Miscellaneous tasks

...maintain popularity • ...assess the un-Class (388) • ...assess the un-Importance (1,340)

Todo

You need more than one source, and you need to do some more summarizing on your own. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relies too much on JTWC, wording needs changing, stom stregnth in inofobx should follow basin standards, i.e., knots (km/h, mph). NSLE 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] (so I don't lose it). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

There's only two paragraphs of impact. The season article is rather short, as well. Should this one be merged? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and work on it soon. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it just needs a lot more info, which I'm not sure exists. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already it's much better, and a merge is no longer needed. You're doing a good job so far, keep it up. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. But I won't have much more time to work on it today. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Some future todo would be getting direct sources for the Gary Padgett report. Be sure to check relief web and dartmouth flood observatory for some possible info. Of course, a Google search will probably yield a lot of info. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review, comments to follow within the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the article looks pretty good to me, seems well written and covers the main aspects. A few small comments and requests I made some copyedits and tweaks to prose, hopefully all are Ok. I'm not much of a meteorologist though, so I can't say much about the technical aspects. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and copyedit, looks great. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations. I'll pass this now. Good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Some repetition of "deadly" here: " produced deadly flooding in the wake of a deadly flood season".
- Changed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Kammuri killed 153 people, most of them related to the remnants" I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
- A storm's remnants is what's left after the circulation dissipates. Imagine a storm moving over land, and how all of its leftover moisture would cause flooding. That was the case here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead image caption, consider stating which body of land it was over at the time.
- Good call! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

"estimated peak 10 minute sustained winds" Should "10 minute" be hyphenated here?
- Yea, you're right, my bad. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Shortly thereafter, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)[nb 3] followed suit by initiating advisories on Tropical Depression 17W,[5] and the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) began issuing advisories early on August 3." Is there a good way around the repetition of "advisories" here?
- Easy enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The remnants were absorbed by a cold front." Do you know when or where this happened?
- The ref did not specify. ಠ_ಠ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations, impact, and aftermath

"Kammuri dropped heavy rainfall in Hong Kong that reached 280 mm (11 in) in Kwai Chung" Might want to note what "Kwai Chung" is, a town?
- Good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Similarly, Shantou Waisha Airport was closed for four hours, causing 10 flights to be delayed or canceled.[2] Heavy damage was reported in three coastal cities.[2] Two small electrical dams were destroyed by the storm, causing additional flooding." Some repetition of "causing" here.
- Tweakage. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest breaking the paragraph that begins "Neighboring Fujian Province to Guangdong" in two.
- OK. I didn't think it was that long, but structurally it makes sense now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Widespread areas lost power or water, and two people were electrocuted in Shantou." Is there a connection between the two halves of the sentence?
- Sort of implication about the power being related to the electrocutions, but I'll change it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"14 reservoirs surpassed their capacity" This was in Hunan, right? Also, might want to avoid starting a sentence with a number like this.
- Yea, gotcha. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to note when the events of the last paragraph occurred.
- Clarified it happened during the storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

Double check for names that need to be italicized. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which ones would have to be? I'm sorry, I always get a little confused by the italicization. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

Hi. I'm thinking about initiating a GAR on this article. There is no indication the references were checked for plagiarism, and the references were not verifiable. I am specifically talking about citations where there the format is "Title." Agency. Date. Accessdate is not a relevant field as there is no url to access. (There is no page number, no location, no author.) The sources are available outside Lexis Nexis, so that is no excuse to not link to them. As these articles appear to persistently be passed with out full citations, I am considering going back over older articles by the nominator and putting up all articles that lack full citations where the reviewer has not indicated a references check has been these references for plagiarism and factually accuracy. --LauraHale (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on your talk page. If you do indeed plan on doing such a review for other storms, may I suggest you contact the entire project, as we regularly do this, even on some featured articles (see Typhoon Chataan). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]