Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Featured article candidates/2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season/archive1

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC), Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I'm trying to diversify the tropical cyclone featured articles a bit. Most tropical cyclone articles are boring storms that hit the United States. This is an entire season article, covering several unique storms that affected portions of Africa. It was quite active, and had several strong storms, and after I got it to A-class earlier this year, I thought I was done with it. But, Yellow Evan pushed me to go further with it. I said, if you help out an FAC run, I'll do it, and surprisingly he agreed. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed researching these storms and writing about them! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming co-nom. This idea all started a month or so ago, and now it's officially at FAC. Hope you all like it! Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I have only done a skim of the article so far, and have made a few very minor edits (like converting a few hyphens to en-dashes in year ranges).

A minor point: the use of digits versus spelled-out numbers doesn't seem to be quite consistent for low numbers. In the first sentence in the lead, the digit "9" is used, then later in the lead "eleven" is used. Omnedon (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAIK the rule is the less than 10, you spell it out. Otherwise, you write it out. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it is not quite that simple, and in any case that ignores the issue of "9" in the opening sentence. Check WP:MOS. Omnedon (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tweaked, and found another instance of that in the body. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead, it seems to me that the description of how seasons are defined, and how that changed, is not a summary of anything in the body, but rather stands alone. Could this definition portion be given a section, or (perhaps better) primarily described in the "Season summary" section? Omnedon (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved one tidibit that I thought was unique to the season alone, but given how uniform the season start dates are (they were the same for each season more or less the same for each season), I think it's better to be consistent with other articles and keep it in the lead. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. It should not have information that is solely presented in the lead and not in the body. Omnedon (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Having looked at your edit on this, it is much better, thanks. Omnedon (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More soon -- good article! Omnedon (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead, "The eleven tropical storms that formed were slightly above normal, although most became stronger." Does "slightly above normal" refer to storm strength? That should be clarified. Omnedon (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but another question... It now reads, "The 11 tropical storms that formed were slightly above the average of nine, although most became stronger." Two issues: for better internal agreement, perhaps something like "Eleven tropical storms formed, above the average of nine..." But then I don't quite see how "although most became stronger" fits with this. It seems as if we're talking about quantity of storms in the first part, and strength of storms in the second. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed, it is sorta covered in the lead already above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From "Eddy", "Its circulation became better defined, and MFR initiated advisories on January 22 on the system." Is "on the system" necessary, as it's the obvious subject of the advisories? Omnedon (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- an interesting and well-written article. Omnedon (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loathe as I am to read about something other than a boring storm that hit the US, I suppose I can take a look. I'm doing a bit of copyediting as I go along, so feel free to revert me if you disagree with anything.
I hate to be "that guy", but I think page numbers on the longer sources are actually quite useful (the WMO and JTWC reports are the only ones that don't, so it shouldn't be too hard).
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin, and several storms either formed or had their origins in the Australian region. - This could probably be condensed; Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin, and several more originated around Australia?
- Good idea, incorporated. 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
the season was considered comparable to the 1993–94 season. - By who?
- Noted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On December 25, a cold front associated with an area of low pressure dragged over the central Mozambique Channel. - This sentence is a bit funky. Does that mean the cold front was part of a synoptic low (which is a given and need not be spelled out), or a mesoscale low was spinning up along the front?
- MFR is a bit confusing here, but appears to be the former. I removed the mention of the low. Even if it was the latter, I am not sure if it is worth noting given that Cyprien has an article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then on December 30, RSMC La Reunion designated this low pressure as a Zone of Disturbed Weather and then a tropical depression on January 1, 2002. - "Then" twice in the same sentence is kind of strong.
- Tweaked the second. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It also dropped heavy rainfall, and there were no deaths. - Rather hodgepodge...
- Changed. Is it better, worse, or the same now? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the precursor to Cyclone Dina quickly developed within a region favoring tropical cyclogenesis. - I think it's obvious that T cyclogenesis was favored if a cyclone formed.
- Removed, but the rest of the sentence does not feel proper now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Random comment, skipping down. I know the "Season effects" section header is pretty standard, but it doesn't make much sense, since most of the table is about meteorological info.
- I can't think of something much better than "Season effects". Could "Season statistics" work? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments later. Nice work, just some minor polishing is needed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JC; it is good to see you editing. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I changed around the first paragraph of the Dina section, since that seemed easier than explaining all my concerns. About the heavy rainfall/deaths point, I'm still not enthralled with it; heavy rainfall itself isn't usually an indication of fatalities. Everything else looks decent. Some more comments...

Revised again. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read the lead initially, but the first sentence strikes me as awkward (probably even a dreaded dangling participle). This is one of those things I'd rather leave up to the primary editors to figure out than fiddle with myself.
- Tweaked. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On January 23, the system intensified into a tropical depression, and intensifying at a slower than normal rate, it became Tropical Storm Eddy on January 24. - "Intensifying" twice, but I don't think simply changing the word would fix the sentence completely. Needs to be reworked if possible.
- Divided into two sentences. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was turning south over land, and as a result it quickly moved offshore. - Rather confusing.
- Reworked. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's about it. As I mentioned above, I did quite a bit of editing while I read. Happy to support once the few outstanding issues here are addressed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the writing style is generally a bit terse I feel, but I can't argue it isn't professional. That said, this is by far the most comprehensive account of this season anywhere in existence, so I'll support. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Image and source reviews? Pls list requests at WT:FAC.
Julian, what's the status of your review now?
Regardless of the above, we need some more eyes on this in fairly short order if we're to establish consensus... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, and thanks for the ping. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

File:2001-2002 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season summary.jpg, File:Alex-Andre 2001 track.png, File:Bessi-Bako 2001 track.png, File:Cyprien 2001 track.png, File:Dina 2002 track.png, File:Eddy 2002 track.png, File:Francesca 2002 track.png, File:Guillaume 2002 track.png, File:Hary 2002 track.png, File:Ikala 2002 track.png, File:Dianne-Jery 2002 track.png, File:Kesiny 2002 track.png: released by the creator Nilfanion to the public domain
File:Damage from Cyclone Dina 2002 in Saint-Leu, Reunion.jpg: Flickr photo with cc-by-sa 2.0 licence
File:TC Alex NOAA.jpg, File:TC Bessi-Bako NOAA.jpg, File:Eddy02.jpg, File:Ikala02.jpg: public domain photos from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
File:STS Cyprien 01 jan 2002 0720Z.jpg, File:ITC Dina 20 jan 2002 0610Z.jpg, File:ITC Guillaume 19 feb 2002 0620Z.jpg, File:VITC Hary 08 mar 2002 0700Z.jpg, File:Jery Apr 8 2002 0440Z.jpg, File:TC Kesiny 06 may 2002 0645Z.jpg: public domain photos from NASA
File:Francesca 5 February 2002.jpg: public domain photo by the U.S. Navy
File:1-S 2001 track.png: released by the creator Potapych to the public domain

All files look clear to me. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article meets the criteria for FA, imo.--12george1 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not far off, but a couple of beefs:

The term "basin" isn't adequately explained or specified in the lead, and the ensuing text doesn't help much.

"Many storms formed in the north-east portion of the basin" What basin? I don't see it named anywhere. You link "basin" later in the text but it goes to a climatology article that doesn't name or define the basin.

Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

"The dividing line between the basins" What two basins? The Australian basin is mentioned at times later in the article... is that one of the two?

Not really, but I cleared this up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

"Tropical cyclones in this basin" etc.

I think it's clear now, but please tell me otherwise if I am wrong. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

In at least one place you violated WP:MOSNUM by mixing numbers as words and numerals for comparative quantities: "During the season, 11 systems were named, which was slightly above the average of nine." Fixed but please check for others.

Earlier in the FAC, this was somewhat covered. I may be wrong, but yours should be the last remaining outpost of the aforementioned issue. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Otherwise looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're still waiting for a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

Ref 5. Why aren't page numbers cited?
- Pretty much the whole thing is cited. Not worth going through and check for page numbers. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 16, page?
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17, page?
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21, specify the name of the website
- It's right in the url, so it's a publisher. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 30–31 and possibly some others, the tables are not being cited consistently. Both are tables of data from the same source. Ref 30 specifies it's in French, says it's a report, but omits the "work" field. Ref 31 lacks the language and report parameters, but does specify a work. Check all these table citations and make sure they are consistent.
- Better? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some French-language sources are called out (16, for example); some are not (5, for example) --Laser brain (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 is in both languages. Otherwise, I attempt to fix them. They may not be perfect, but should be better. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Conflict, go for one source check and you get two!
Source Check The first time I've done one, but I've combed through the references to verify what they say. If a reference is not mentioned, it's okay, I had issues loading Ref 5 so the Dina sections and anything after the second paragraph of Guillaumie still need fact checking. Ref 13 I couldn't verify due to subscription.

Ref 2 - Date on the document says April 1, not June.

Tweaked. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 4 - If I'm reading this correctly the warnings relate to the Number Issued category in the table? If so then yes this matches up with the article. Also why are there some Tropical Cyclones mentioned in this document that aren't in the text, even in the final table at the bottom?

Good question. Some of the storms mentioned in that PDF did not form on this particular areas of the world, so they are not include. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 5 - For Dina winds were a bit confusing to find, I think I read the section a few times and couldn't find it, any chance you could point it out. Dina will definitely need double checking though, I couldn't find all the cited facts. Eddy I couldn't find the wind speed information. Francesca it says wind speed neared 200km/h, but nothing more specific, and I can confirm the first paragraph of Guillamie, but my computer refused to load anything more of this document. This is one of the most difficult documents I've ever encountered, any chance there is a pdf or something?

Yes, it's difficult, but there is no chance for a pdf. I found the info regarding Dina's peak, and found a different ref for Eddy's peak. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 9 - It transitioned on the same day, not the next day.

Altered. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 10 - Nothing is said about Dec 27, I also wouldn't call 6am late. This is further enhanced by Ref 11 calling it Cyprien by 9am.

Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 12 - I don't see why this is in the Dina section, it collaborates the Cyprien section but not Dina.

This was a ref name error and it has been corrected. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 14 - Supports the agricultural value, not the property value, says there were only five fatalities. Ref 17 says six though.

Ref 17 is squeezed in there to help verify the info. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 16 - Appears to support what is being referenced, I couldn't really find anything relating the flooding to record breaking or near record breaking though.

Cut that part out. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 18 - Francesca was updated to hurricane 04/0000UTC, Guillaume was classified as 15S.

Fixed both, second info was likely a mental error. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 21 - I can't see the info regarding to the publish date of March 2002, only that it was updated at 5:10pm, however I don't doubt this was the month of publish, all this info is covered in Ref 22 though so I suggest removing this one.

Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Ref 22 - According to the article, it was written March 12.

Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 23 - No mention of thunderstorms, unless that's a ragged eye.

There is. "Animated satellite imagery indicated that convection was increasing over the LLCC". Convection=thunderstorms. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 26 - Cites 20 people dying, not 33.

Ref 5 verifies it actually. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 31 - Apparently it dissipated by the next day, not two days later.

No,"03 200111231200 ZONE_PERTURBEE" is the last reference that MFR makes, which is 2 days after November 21. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 32 - I can't see the phrase 04S in this reference.

It's in the url, but tweaked anyway. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 33 - This tropical disturbance isn't referred to by Tropical Disturbance 15 in the reference.

Altered. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General - It appears that all your wind values are based off Australian Severe Weather or the tracking data, and not Meteo-France Ref 5 (unless I'm missing some wind tables somewhere, which is perfectly possible). Also, I'm assuming your maths is right for the knot to speed conversions, if not for the fact that I'm not certain on the calculations.

Your statement is correct. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre -> Regional Specialized Meteorological Center

Okay. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The strongest storm, Cyclone Hary, was the first very intense tropical cyclone since 2000; it hit Madagascar, where it caused lighter damage than expected but three deaths." This number is four in the end table, and three in the Cyclone Hary section, is the electrocution death mentioned one of the three or the fourth?

Yes, but there was 4th death outside of Madagascar. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

"...was the first very intense tropical cyclone since 2000..." Is it odd to not have a very intense one for a year, is the point that there were two so close together?

Yes. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"During the season, eleven systems were named, which was slightly above the average of nine." Might help to say that eleven tropical storm systems were named. It pushes the points that there was an above average number of storms and a significant number of tropical cyclones.

Good idea in theory, but it's not necessary IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However, nine of the system attained cyclone intensity..." maybe nine of the systems?

Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was renamed Andre, becoming the earliest date for the first named storm since 1992." Was this only after it was named Andre or whilst it was known as Alex too? It seems odd that Meteorological Services of Madagascar can name storms, but not the Australian BoM

BOM monitors an entirely seperate basin, so it was known as Alex outside of the basin. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Two days later, it moved into the South-West Indian Ocean,[8] and was renamed Bako." It became Bako on the 30th according to source 5, so shouldn't this be three days?

Noted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should Zone of Disturbed Weather be capitalised or not? It is in Cyprien, not in Guillamie or Other storms.

Decapitalized it in Cyprien's. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Damage in the towns was estimated at $180,000,[12] but there were no deaths." Might be worth moving the reference to the end and saying there were no reported deaths. Also, in the end table it says $181,000.

Did the first, I think the 2nd is not really needed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tropical Storm Cyprien also dropped heavy rainfall." Is heavy rainfall unusual? Or maybe add that it was this that caused the property damage, make it add something to the section.

It's something worth noting and I connected it to Cuprien making landfall. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the final table are the aggregates the average or the highest? Cause it has the highest windspeed, but not the highest pressure listed? Also shouldn't the cost column be $281.2 million, since you'd round up?

The highest. I tweaked the rounding, but BTW, it's 287.2 mil, not 281.2 mil. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~====Comments from AmericanLemming====~~

~~I'll be reviewing and copy-editing this article over the weekend. Expect a thorough review to come shortly. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

There has been a change of plans: I need to study organic chemistry over the next month, not spend hours reviewing FACs on Wikipedia. (Trust me, I would rather be doing the latter.) I sincerely apologize for the disappointment this will cause the nominators of this article as well as the FAC coordinators, but it is what it is. I thought I would be upfront about it (one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia is when people say they're going to do something and then do it a month later or not at all). AmericanLemming (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.