Talk:Typhoon Yancy (1990)

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

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Typhoon Yancy in August 1990
Typhoon Yancy in August 1990

Moved to mainspace by Master of Time (talk) and SMB99thx (talk). Nominated by Evrik (talk) at 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Master of Time, SMB99thx, and Evrik: When was this article moved to mainspace? It's a bit hard to tell with the history merge. Also, while this is a style issue beyond the scope of DYK, it would be nice to break up the "Meteorological history" section into paragraphs. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved on August 12. --evrik (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Master of Time, SMB99thx, and Evrik: Okay! Long and new enough, within policy, QPQ done, Earwig finds no copyvios. Source does not confirm hook fact. Also, it would be nice to have a more interesting hook, though the article as written is kind of dry. The concept of a "mesoscale trochoidal oscillation" caught my eye. Is this unusual? Might make a good hook. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): It's better to paste the line {{subst:DYKproblem|Typhoon Yancy (1990)|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the user talk pages than rely on pings. I've just left this notification on the nominator's talk page. Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original hook is taken from the lede. I have edited the "Impacts" section of the article to document that hook. --evrik (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik: I still don't see it. The cited source [1] lists "Most Destructive Tropical Cyclones for the Month of November (1948-2000)" which isn't relevant. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon striking China, the storm killed at least 216 people and caused an estimated $170 million in direct economic losses.[1]The only storm with a greater impact was Typhoon Mike, which struck the central Philippines in mid-November, where landslides, flooding, and extreme wind damage to caused over 748 casualties and over $1.94 billion in damage (1990 USD).[2]
  • Alt1 ... that in August 1990, what would eventually develop into Typhoon Yancy (pictured) began as a low-level convective center on the eastern side of a monsoon depression?1990 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report (PDF). Joint Typhoon Warning Center. p. 105.
@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Here is another try. --evrik (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Evrik: The source still doesn't verify the fact. It says that Ruping caused more deaths than Yancy, but doesn't say that Ruping was the only storm that year to do so. ALT1 is uninteresting, unless there's a reason that development pattern is unusual. I still find the trochoidal oscillations interesting; more information can be found at e.g. [2]. I'm thinking something like the following. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with Alt2. Asking for another reviewer to approve Alt2. --evrik (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deferring to previous on requirements, the hook is accurate and soured. I duplicated the source to the relevant sentence and added page numbers. CMD (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Typhoon Yancy's Death Toll Reaches 216". Associated Press. 1990-08-29. Retrieved 2015-06-10.
  2. ^ "Most Destructive Tropical Cyclones for Month of November (1948-2000)". PAGASA. Retrieved 2007-02-04.

Sorry for very late reply, but with many improvements in a try to make this article promoted into DYK, i upgraded this article from C-Class to B-Class. If this article wants to be a GA, it needs more improvement than just this. SMB99thx my edits 00:57, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

I am going to nominate this for GA soon after this is done. MarioJump83! 11:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank TropicalAnalystwx13 for doing the deed, I'll fix the issues in the rest of article. MarioJump83! 15:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Yancy (1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArcticSeeress (talk · contribs) 14:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, TropicalAnalystwx13. I'm ArcticSeeress, and I'll be reviewing this nomination. I'll look forward to working with you. ArcticSeeress (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history[edit]

  • You might want to archive the references retrieved from usno.navy.mil. They are currently dead.
 Done Just found out about this. I'm saddened by that. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a period lasting four days, multiple vortices persisted at low latitudes prior to their ultimate consolidation into Yancy. During its early stages of formation, Yancy moved in an inconsistent manner as mesoscale convective elements developed and decayed, and up until August 13, Yancy adopted a steady westward track. During this period, the JTWC issued three Tropical Cyclone Formation Alerts (TCFAs). - You've forgotten to cite this sentence to the 1990 Annual Tropical Cyclone Report.
 Done MarioJump83 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MarioJump83 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done MarioJump83 (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 18, just as the cyclone was peaking in intensity, it developed an eye. Yancy then proceeded to carry out a trochoidal oscillation, tracking across Taiwan the next day - I'm not sure how this is verified by the JMA data, which is the current source
 Fixed That claim comes from 1990 ATCR. "Tracking across Taiwan the next day" is from JMA, using coordinates in the text. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JTWC downgraded Yancy to a tropical storm at 00:00 UTC August 20; thirty hours later, the agency downgraded the storm to a tropical depression, simultaneously issuing its final warning and declaring Yancy dissipated - You forgot the citation here.
 Done This claim comes from the source MarioJump83 (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Impacts[edit]

  • Is the typhoon2000.ph reference reliable? I'm not sure how I feel about citing a JPG that purports to be from PAGASA as a source. I'm also not sure how it verifies that it actually carries that name in the Philippines either.
 Fixed I'm replacing the source with an archived one. If you see [3], this should be the same list, because this is when PAGASA used post-1985 (until 2001) list. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioJump83: The source still doesn't verify that this is actually what the typhoon is called, just that there's a naming system used in the Philippines for typhoons. Going by the logic of the source, this would be the fifth "disturbance" in the year 1990, but again, this particular typhoon being the fifth one, and therefore bearing the name Gading isn't written there. If you can find a source that says that this is the fifth one in their system for that year, then I'd be happy with this, but as it stands, this seems like original research. ArcticSeeress (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArcticSeeress: The best thing I could do is to remove it. There are no published sources referencing to Typhoon Yancy (1990) being Gading, and "sources" that do reference it are mirrors. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • These rains caused extensive flooding that washed away 99,000 ha (244,000 acres) of rice, vegetable, and fruit plantation. - In the source, this is listed as 24,400 acres, not 244,000.
 Done MarioJump83 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One house was collapsed and seven others were damaged. The combination of floods and landslides blocked many railways and roads. Hundreds of trees were uprooted. In Taipei alone, about 525,000 families lost power. In the Port of Keelung, one fishing vessel capsized and a 31,600 ton ship Livi was run aground. Total damage across Taiwan was estimated at NT$2.7 million. - These sentences just sound like a list. Write more connecting words between them (e.g. and, with)
I'm not sure since the source is being written like this. Despite this, I  Fixed it though. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The injuries occurred from falling objects This could be written directly after fourteen others were injured. E.g. "fourteen others were injured by falling objects"
 Fixed. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • shut down the Taoyuan International Airport - remove "the"
 Done MarioJump83 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total damage was estimated at $450 million RMB. A total of 96 people were killed, 63 others were reported missing, and more than 400 more were injured. An additional 7,800 heads of livestock were killed as well - You forgot the citation to the cyclone report here.
 Done MarioJump83 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effects by Yancy were described as more severe than the impacts of four other typhoons that had already struck the region during the past two months - The source does not describe the effects as more severe than the other typhoons, only that they had struck the region the past two months.
 Fixed Changed the sentence to be closer to the source. MarioJump83 (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add "via=Newspapers.com" to the citation templates that were retrieved from that website.
 Done I'll link the first one (which redirects to Ancestry.com). MarioJump83 (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • The citation isn't necessary in the lead, as it is already verified in the article body
 Done. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • peak winds of 165 km/h (105 km/h) - It should say mph in the parentheses.
 Done. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total damage reached $284 million - You write $212 million in the infobox. Which one is correct? Also, should it really say dollars instead of RMB? What year did you calculate the exchange rate from? It might be better to your write RMB in the infobox and lead.
I think the 212 million and 284 million figures are underestimates because of writing in HKO's tropical cyclone report, so I gave 384 million figures which are from 1990 NTD (around 27 USD [4]) and 1990 RMB (4.73 USD [5]) exchange rates. About writing RMB, I can't do that, since the infobox doesn't support it. Also, this doesn't affect just China but also Taiwan, so I think USD is better. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

The link here is already used as a source. This section isn't necessary.

Thanks. minus Removed MarioJump83 (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

There is one source that I find questionable, but the other ones used in the article all seem reliable. There are a few hiccups with missing citations, but I can tell that the information is actually verifiable, and that there are no copyright violations. The prose is well-written and follows MOS. The article is neutral, stable, and contains relevant public-domain images. In regards to the coverage of the article: Are there any sources that talk about the aftermath of the typhoon? It did leave 400,000 people homeless, and inflicted several hundred millions in damage. This might be worth including in the article (if you can find reliable sources, after all). In any case, this article is close to passing, so I'll put this on hold until the issues are dealt with. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArcticSeeress: I'm probably be the one who is going to do it. MarioJump83 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose that's fine. As long as it gets done, I guess it won't matter who does it. I'll look forward to working with you, MarioJump83. ArcticSeeress (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ArcticSeeress: I think I have done it. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the aftermath, I don't think there is any sources that do talk about it. MarioJump83 (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if there are no reliable sources on that, then it looks like everything's good to go. I've read through the article again and made some minor changes. Good work. ArcticSeeress (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion[edit]

While the work done brings this to GA, there are some problems that prevents this from going further. I have re-added "Yancy (Gading)" info towards the article, but lack of sources supporting the assertion makes this a serious obstacle, since it is basically OR (not for WPTC standards, but different for the rest of Wikipedia). Other than that is the aftermath as well as estimated damages from conversions which I think should disqualify this from being FA. If anyone wants to work this into a FA, I think this is a note that had to be taken. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Yancy_(1990)&oldid=1210958519"