Talk:Tropical Storm Nanmadol (2017)

Floods not related to Nanmadol

I need to look a bit closer, but I'm almost certain the Kyushu floods were not caused by Nanmadol. It appears that a thunderstorm complex unrelated to the storm struck the region shortly after Nanmadol's passage, and that system triggered the disaster. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I did thought about that as well, though most articles I've seen stated something like "flooding since week (around July 3-5)". Also some articles I've also seen like this stated that Nanmadol caused severe flooding and killed something people etc. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Nanmadol (2017)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@CycloneIsaac: Sure. Just notify me when ready. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013:.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria 1: Pretty much done. Only need to add mentions of landfall. I have no idea who add the July 11 statement there, but if there is a possible source, as shown in its track, I will add it in. I just need to confirm that.

Criteria 2: Current. Removed Criteria 3, as to what I say is "if no source, then no mention". Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, article is (mostly) done now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:19, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my edits yesterday, I did some copyediting for grammar, and added non-breaking spaces and convert templates. Hopefully that settles some of the issues for Criteria 1. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 07:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Since not all issues have not been solved with these seven days, this nomination has failed.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 16:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	See below	Fail
(b) (MoS)	See below	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	See below	WTF!?
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	See below	Fail
(c) (original research)	See below	Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	20.6% for one site, better paraphrasing needed	Fail

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	See below	Fail
(b) (focused)	See below	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
The reviewer has no notes here.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Most have not changed since the day of the storm, which is good and bad.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No non-free images	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Good captions	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	On hold for one week.

Discussion

Criteria 1

• "After gathering organization," Should be gaining.
• "the system rapidly developed and intensified into a severe tropical storm and reached its peak intensity." What is the peak intensity?
• Link Extratropical cyclone.
• "during July 5." should be "on July 5."
• "while five people are still unaccounted for." Change to "with five people unaccounted for."
• "It is used from Nan Madol" From or named after?
• "sometimes called as the "Venice of the Pacific"." The source said it is, not just sometimes.
• "Later that day," What is six hours after "Later that day?"
• "Soon after, the JTWC gave the system the internal designation of 05W, though they still classified it as a tropical depression." This sentence implies that they gave the designation as 5W but declared it as a depression earlier.
• Did PAGASA upgrade Emong to a tropical storm before severe tropical storm?
• "while Nanmadol was exiting the Philippine Area of Responsibility." Change to "when Nanmadol exited the Philippine Area of Responsibility."
• There are more then one landfalls depicted on the track map. Those aren't mentioned.
• "during July 8" On.
• "During the next few days, the storm's remnants accelerated eastward towards Alaska, before dissipating off the coast of Alaska on July 11." Not referenced.
• "The local government in Shimane, meanwhile, also urged residents to evacuate and issued a warning to 20,000 residents spanning some 9,200 households," is not "which promoted local officials to evacuate about 20,000 residents".
• "During July 3" / "In July 10" You know what to do.
• "began a bus" bus service?
• "Trees with trunks of 50–60 cm (19.7–23.6 in) were washed away, which blocked the water stream further and thus exacerbated floods." Change to "blocking the water stream further and exacerbated floods."
• "Therefore, on July 11, Forestry minister Yuji Yamamoto pledged to set up a task force to take a large driftwood, while an official at the University of Hyogo warned other municipalities of potential damage caused by fallen trees." Split these into two sentences.
• Nagasaki should be linked the first time used.
• "in Shikoku town of Muroto" Insert "the" between "in Shikoku".
• "the iconic Shinkansen," That's an opinion.
• "1,724 people. evacuated." Fragment.
• "routes were already reopened over in some communities in the Fukuoka Prefecture." Routes of what?

Criteria 2

Doing ref by ref.

• Ref 1: Agency missing, location missing, access date missing.
• Ref 2: Bare url, everything missing.
• Ref 3: Inconsistent dates.
• Ref 4: Bare url, everything missing.
• Ref 5: ^
• Ref 6: Date missing/inconsistent.
• Ref 7: Date inconsistent.
• Ref 8: Wrong title, wrong publisher, archive date missing, access date missing.
• Ref 9: Agency missing, location missing, access date missing.
• Ref 10: Archive date/publisher missing.
• Ref 11: ^
• Ref 12: ^
• Ref 13: ^
• Ref 14: ^
• Ref 15: ^
• Ref 16: Agency missing, location missing, access date missing.
• Ref 17: Archive date/publisher missing.
• Ref 18: ^
• Ref 19: ^
• Ref 20: ^
• Ref 21: Bare url, everything missing.
• Ref 22: Archive date/publisher missing.
• Ref 23: ^
• Ref 24: ^
• Ref 25: ^
• Ref 26: ^
• Ref 27: Publisher missing, access date missing.
• Ref 28: Location missing, access date missing.
• Ref 29: Blog unreliable, use Stars and Stripes articles only.
• Ref 30: Access date missing, subscription tag missing.
• Ref 31: Location missing, access date missing.
• Ref 32: Access date missing, subscription tag missing.
• Ref 33: "Typhoon Nanmadol", inconsistent dates.
• Ref 34: Author missing.
• Ref 35: Dead link.
• Ref 36: ^
• Ref 37: ^
• Ref 38: Wrong author, publisher missing, date missing.
• Ref 39: Access date missing.
• Ref 40: Article expired.
• Ref 41: Editorials are not reliable.
• Ref 42: Location missing, publisher missing, access date missing.
• Ref 43: ^
• Ref 44: ^
• Ref 45: Bare url, everything missing.
• Ref 46: Dead link.
• Ref 47: Subscription tag missing.

Criteria 3

• There is Alaskan impact according to the infobox. Where is it?

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Nanmadol (2017)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

will do. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Has everything from the last GAN been addressed? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Just looking at the lead for now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• ", and strengthened into the third named storm of the annual typhoon season during July 3." link to tropical cyclone naming please. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Link done. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• " reached its peak intensity with maximum 10-minute sustained winds" link to maximum sustained wind. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Link done. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "and a minimum pressure of 985 hPa (29.09 inHg)." link to barometric pressure. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Link done. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "On July 4, Nanmadol turned eastwards and made landfall" link to landfall (meteorology). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Link done. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "Nanmadol's remnant continued to be tracked until it moved out of the basin four days later." what is a basin? the average reader won't know. You could insert the appropriate wikilink but honestly I'd just remove the basin bit altogether.
• Removed that part instead. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• Why are there sources in the lead? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed the sources. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "Nanmadol mostly affected the island of Kyushu, bringing torrential rainfall and landslides over in many prefectures; the hardest hit prefectures were Fukuoka and Ōita. The one-day rainfall in Asakura, Fukuoka surpassed the city's average total for July by 50%, where it saw 500 mm (20 in) fall in a 12-hour period on July 5.[1] Landslides were recorded in 44 different locations and flooding in 38 locations. As of August 5, the death toll has been placed at 36, with five unaccounted for.[2]" honestly just re-write this entire thing. Also why only as of August 5? Is there not anything more recent? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Re-wrote it. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "The name Nanmadol was contributed to the western Pacific typhoon naming list by Micronesia. It is named after Nan Madol, a famous Pohnpei ruin that is deemed as the "Venice of the Pacific".[3]" yes because that has a lot to do with the article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
  • Removed section. Typhoon2013 (talk)

Just deal with this now, I'll review that MH once you're done with this. Just taking this one section at a time. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: All of the points done along with the added links. I have reworded as much as I can within the second paragraph. Removed the third paragraph regarding the naming, as there is a link regarding that in the "See also" section. Also it seems like I have done the majority of the points from the previous GAN. Hope all is well so far. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Can you add more impact to the lead? Repeating the advice I gave to another user regarding impact of the lead. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane}
  • Deaths/injuries
  • Monetary damage estimates divided up by category
  • Number of homes damaged/destroyed, leaving number of people homeless
  • Number of crops destroyed (usually in ha)
  • Explaining how people died/got injured, especially if most of the deaths of a cyclone can be traced back to one or two incidents
  • Areas that were according to sources the worst hit with a possible brief explanation of why
  • Disaster declarations
  • To be fair, some of this doesn't seem discussed in the body and some of this you have already but I think it's a good checklist here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Why a "the" before PAGASA? Do other GA's have it like this and am I just insane? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• "Later that day, when the depression's sustained winds were estimated at 55 km/h (35 mph), the JMA began to issue advisories.[5] " significance of the wind here? Or even the entire sentence to be honest. At minimum, explain why the JMA issuing advisories is significant. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed winds bit. Talked about how the JMA issuing advisories meant that they predict the system to strength to a TS within 24 hrs. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "Nanmadol later entered a favorable environment with low vertical wind shear, high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of 30–31 °C (86–88 °F), and robust outflow," "robust outflow" is not a favorable environmental condition per se. Honestly I'd just axe that bit as the rest of the sentence is fine. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yep ok, removed. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "Nanmadol continued to intensify while moving northward just to the east of Taiwan, with satellite imagery capturing a small, developing eye.[14] " link to satellite imagery. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Done and linked. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• " the JTWC downgraded the system further to a weak tropical storm" that isn't an actual term. Better off just giving a wind speed in this instance. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I added this because before the JTWC released their post-analysis. Reworded instead to low-end of tropical storm intensity. Typhoon2013 (talk)
• "Conditions became very unfavorable, with high wind shear and cool SSTs of 24–25 °C (75–77 °F).[22] " this is kind of a dumpy sentence. Your call if you want to remove it alotgether though. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah, removed instead. It's just only one line. Typhoon2013 (talk)

Honestly the MH is pretty good and exceeded my expectations. I will say looking at the impact briefly you mention 37 deaths but don't really mentioned how they died. Nor do you mentioned some of the stuff in the body that ideally should be in the lead, though I'm not sure how easily accessible such info is. I haven't done any internet era Japan or even WPAC storms for that matter but my best advice is to look at some of the sources in GAs for similarish storms. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 06:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Done all of the MH points aside from the PAGASA one. Haven't done the PAGASA one just yet because isn't it the same as the JMA and the JTWC, where adding "the" before the PAGASA is necessary as it's a shortened name of the agency? Because if not, then it then adding "the" before NHC, JMA, JTWC etc isn't necessary at all. Lead will be worked on after this. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: pinging again because it has been a few weeks. :/ Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Good job so far. Can you see if there's anything to be added from here? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Omg sorry for the late reply. I did not know that this information existed in Digital Typhoon. I have added some more information regarding the Asaka(?) prefecture rainfall totals and changed the death toll one up to 42. I'll see what else I can do, though. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan and Typhoon2013: Can I ask the status of this review? It has been one month since the last comment. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

2017 Northern Kyushu floods

2017 Northern Kyushu floods was caused by Tropical Storm Nanmadol. So I suggest to make redirect 2017 Northern Kyushu floods to Tropical_Storm_Nanmadol_(2017)#Preparations,_impact,_and_aftermath. Most of what is written in 2017 Northern Kyushu floods is a copy of what is written in Tropical_Storm_Nanmadol_(2017)#Preparations,_impact,_and_aftermath. In other words, the content is completely duplicated. So 2017 Northern Kyushu floods should be redirect to Tropical_Storm_Nanmadol_(2017)#Preparations,_impact,_and_aftermath. 61.199.190.4 (talk) 10:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I made it redirect. 126.166.247.205 (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)