Talk:Tropical Storm Podul (2013)

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

Is Podul the same storm as Cyclonic Storm Helen?[edit]

From what other users have told me, Podul entered the Bay of Bengal from the coast of Myanmar late on November 17. I even saw this on satellite imagery, even though it was hard to identify the remnants. Coincidentally, a tropical cyclone developed within the Indian Ocean on November 19, not very far from where I last spotted Podul's remnants, and the timespan is reasonable enough to conclude that Podul and Helen are one and the same. However, the IMD did not include the system's (if any) JMA name within its bulletins, and unlike Wilma (BOB 05), they didn't monitor the system immediately, rather, they waited until a couple of days after its emergence in the Bay of Bengal. Another problem is that I can't find a link to wherever it is these users are getting their sources, and they didn't really provide any links with any conclusive evidence. Also, the IPs are adding stuff about Podul and Helen being the same, although they all failed to provide a source.

With these difficulties in mind, I would really like to know whether these 2 storms really are the same system. I think that we should settle this here, to end any possible edit conflicts and additional WP:OR from being added to the articles of the storms in question. If the storms really are the same, please provide a link. If not, please provide some proof here so that we may end this controversy. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Combining the two is WP:OR as no agency connects the systems. That said, looking at images myself, Podul entirely dissipated as it emerged off Myanmar and remnant energy contributed to the formation of a new low pressure near the Andaman Islands. With that, Podul and Helen are separate tropical cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please provide a link, if any? I would love to use it to cite the storms' differences, despite their relation. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly I'm not a meteorologist myself and can't provide a source for you :P Just my opinion from looking at satellite images (which we can't use to source information). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Podul (2013)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cloudchased (talk · contribs) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be taking this one. Looks good :) Cloudchased (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, the prose is pretty clear and has few issues, and I don't have any ref nitpicks for once. :p Even so, there's still a few spots that could be clarified:

  • "After crossing the Philippines, the depression intensified into Tropical Storm Podul on November 14." Was it designated at this time or did it intensify into a TS? Or both?
  • The JMA had designated it as a TD several days prior. It became a TS and was named Podul at the same time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the circulation" → "its circulation"?
  • "Podul killed 42 people in the country and caused 74 injuries." You could compact this slightly into "Podul killed 42 people and injured 74 others in the country" or something along these lines.
  • They're the same number of words, and yours is just one character shorter. That's a bit too minor to consider "compacting", and I'll keep it as is if that's alright :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On November 9, an area of disorganized convection, or thunderstorms, persisted" – wait, persisted? Then where did they come from? Word choice issues, methinks.
  • Not quite. The JTWC clearly said the convection persisted. They don't say where it came from, but for what it's worth, convection often forms throughout the earth fairly randomly, sometimes simply due to the interaction between warm water and cooler atmosphere. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link to the part of the MOS that mandates this? I've always done it differently. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[PAGASA] initiated advisories on Tropical Depression Zoraida, after the system entered the area of responsibility of the agency." → "after the system entered its area of responsibility." Scratch the commas, make it simple to read, please. :P
  • "... although operationally the agency had classified the system two days prior." – er, could you explain what this means?
  • What part are you confused about? The word "operationally"? Or that the JMA first started issuing two days before they said a TD developed in the BT? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the convection became less organized" → "its convection became less organized"
  • "declaring that the depression degenerated" → "declaring that the depression had degenerated"?
  • "crossed over Palawan island and into the South China Sea" – if the area beyond Palawan island is the SCS, then the "and" isn't necessitated.
  • "the convection had rapidly increased" → "that convection had rapidly increased"; just an opinion.
  • "but warm water temperatures and moderate outflow were expected to allow intensification." I feel like this part needs more emphasis, as well; maybe add an "even so" to indicate that the conditions were generally favorable despite the wind shear?
  • "10–minute" ... "1–minute" – oi, use a hyphen. Dashes aren't dashing in this place... see the MoS.
  • You sure? I used that for a recent season FA, and there were no objections. 1 minute seems like it's referring to a duration of time, not as a description to the winds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the latter agency only estimating tropical depression-force winds" is redundant; merge that part with the JTWC info, please.
  • "For Palau and nearby Yap island, the Guam National Weather Service warned of the potential of heavy rainfall and high surf." Flip this sentence around to start with the GNWS part. ;)
  • "After the extreme damage from Typhoon Haiyan that struck the Philippines" – extreme damage struck the Philippines? Wording, please.
  • "which affected rescue work" – nitpick, but how so?
  • "including 1,400 the resort town" – I think you might have forgotten a word or two here...
  • Nope. I mentioned the total number of people forced to evacuate, which included 1,400 in that resort town. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "canals or dykes" – Use "and"! >:(
  • "The high rainfall increased levels along rivers" – I was on level 25 today but then I lost my last life to the red ghost. Er, what type of levels? Please clarify in the article. :P
  • "record set in 1981" ... "worst in Vietnam since 1999" – by? If it isn't known then I'll let it slide.
  • Unfortunately, I have a theory but nothing definitive. Lazy media peeps :( ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it's very well-written and I don't have any other issues to bring up. Also, kudos for archiving/rescuing those few links. ;) Nice work as usual, Hink! Cloudchased (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formation date?[edit]

There appears to be an edit war over the formation date. Throughout the project, we use whatever the official starting date is from the RSMC. In the WPAC, that is the JMA. In the event it is only PAGASA, then of course we would only use their dates. But when a storm is properly recognized by the official warning center, we use their dates. That is a project standard. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed espically since PAGASA themselves are kinda using the 11th in their track maps.Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Tropical Storm Podul (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_Storm_Podul_(2013)&oldid=1211240868"