Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Maemi/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 10:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Typhoon Maemi[edit]

Typhoon Maemi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 and Hurricanehink (talk), 05:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Typhoon Maemi was the most powerful typhoon to strike South Korea since record-keeping began in the country in 1904. Nationwide, the high winds destroyed about 5,000 houses and damaged 13,000 homes and businesses, leaving 25,000 people homeless. About 1.47 million lost power, and widespread crop damage occurred, resulting in the worst rice crop in 23 years. Apart from that, its Wikipedia article is currently a good article, sitting A-class, and ready to be awarded the FA star. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 05:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that co-nom mode has been activated and ready for go! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

  • All images are public domain with appropriate captions.
  • Sources:
    • The footnotes should be audited because some publication names aren't in italics that should be, like Korea Times in footnote 13.
    • Footnote 15 lists Pravda.ru as the publisher, where it probably should list Pravda as the publication name.
    • Footnote 52 uses USAToday.com where it should probably just use USA Today.
    • ReliefWeb probably should be in italics as the name of the website.
    • Otherwise the sources look good to me, all from high-quality, reliable sources. Imzadi 1979 → 00:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed all, I suppose :) — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 02:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the fix. |agency= is for a wire service, where |work= or |newspaper= is for the publication name. You shouldn't have to override the output of a parameter to make it appear in italics. (Plus, the metadata would be wrong if the wrong parameter is used.) Anyway, I fixed up some more, so the citations look good now. I'll pop back in a couple of days to look at prose and stuff. Imzadi 1979 → 02:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. I don't usually use the agency parameter. It was hink :) — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 17:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments since I have a FAC up...
    • Lead - two consecutive sentences starting with "It"
    • after an pressure - after a pressure
    • South Korea - two consecutive sentences beginning with "Damage", and another in the same paragraph.
    • On Ulleungdo offshore the eastern coast, - not sure what is being said here
    • utility damage?
    • lost access to mobile and cell phones - the phones, or the ability to receive calls?
    • while Rusa causing more damage overall. -> caused
    • Aftermath - should tax breaks be linked?
    • Should be a support once these issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comments addressed, and the prose is good. It seems comprehensive, but then of course I'm not a subject expert. --Rschen7754 04:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as GA reviewer. Hink did a fine job with this as always. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It slowly intensified into a tropical storm while moving northwestward, and Maemi became a typhoon on September 8." If it was designated as a typhoon at that point, then the naming should be noted after the intensification. (I can't put this into words very well; ping me on IRC if clarification's needed.)
  • "The eyewall soon after passed over the Japanese island of Miyako-jima on September 10" doesn't flow very well. Perhaps it could be reworded to something along the lines of "Soon thereafter, the eyewall passed over the Japanese island of Miyako-jima..."
  • "With warm waters" – the typhoon didn't have warm waters, it was on them. Please reword this to modify the correct noun or something. :p
  • "although" → "though"
  • "damaged 104 buildings, and 95% of residents lost power" – for the sake of consistency, could the latter part be reworded to, say, "and caused power outages for 95% of residents"?
  • "including rates of" – I don't think "including" is the best word to use here...?
  • Records are mentioned multiple times in the lede, but it isn't state what records they broke.
  • I didn't really want to bloat the lead too much, and the records broke those set by a variety of storms. I did add the one for strongest in South Korea since 1959, since that was the longest lasting one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nationwide, the high winds destroyed about 5,000 houses and damaged 13,000 homes and businesses" – "homes" is often synonymous with "houses," so you might want to consider inserting an "other" somewhere in that sentence.
  • "resulting in the worst rice crop in 23 years" – I think "harvest" is a more fitting word here.
  • "Despite the wind shear, system continued to develop" – where's the "the"? YOU NEED A THE. >:(
  • "duration" → "existence"?
  • "...winds of over..." – maybe write "a tropical cyclone with winds of over..." instead? Just an opinion.
  • "The JTWC had upgraded" – I'd think that "also upgraded" would be a better wording given the context, since it was on the same date.
  • It wasn't though. The JMA upgraded to typhoon status on the 8th, but JTWC was on the 7th. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1 minute sustained winds" ... "10 minute winds" ... "1 minute winds" ... "10 minute winds" – Hink, we talked about this over IRC and on the GA review for Podul. You said it yourself. Use a hyphen. :<
  • "with JMA" – "the" is sad :(
  • "surpassing Typhoon Sarah" → "surpassing those of Typhoon Sarah"?
  • The preps section is short. Perhaps it could be merged with the rest of the impact section?
  • Then I feel the impact would be too long. It's just a nice little paragraph to highlight what happened before the storm struck. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to dams opening floodgates" – wait... the floodgates were deliberately opened?
  • That often happens during storms to prevent the dams from collapsing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which stranded residents" → "stranding residents"
  • "2 hour passage" requires a hyphen.
  • "On the island, Maemi damaged 104 buildings, including two severely damaged houses." Perhaps you could say "of which two were severely damaged"?
  • Ehh, but right now it says that they're houses, but your way doesn't. I think that's important. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One person on Miyako-jima..." – shouldn't this little tidbit be placed in the previous paragraph?
  • K, wasn't sure when I wrote this, but that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a station in Hirado" – I'll assume this is a weather observation station, but I think it could be clarified in the article.
  • "third highest" also requires a hyphen.
  • "A fallen tree in Sapporo killed one person and injured two others" implies that the tree had already fallen beforehand; please reword.
  • "and 363 houses were flooded" → "and flooded 363 houses"?
  • "two of whom severely" – err, what?
  • Two people were severely injured. I cut the "of whom" part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "South Korea mainland" – the demonym is usually used when referring to a "mainland". You don't hear "America mainland" or "China mainland" often.
  • "which injured five people and killed two in one incident" → "injuring five and killing two others" flows better, especially with the presence of a previous "-ing".
  • Actually, I disagree specifically because of the previous "-ing". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with initial estimates of the Busan port requiring a year to fully reopen" – er, mind rewording this phrase a bit? They're not estimating the port.
  • "Residents there complained due to the lack" – IMHO, "about" would be more appropriate than "due to" in this context.
  • "Widespread areas also lost mobile and cell phone service due to damage." – Err, just saying, I think this would be better worded as "Widespread damage interrupted mobile and cell phone service", or something along those lines.
  • "About 150 businesses in Gangwon Province were destroyed by Typhoon Rusa in 2002, rebuilt, and destroyed again by Maemi" could be reworded to "About 150 businesses in Gangwon Province rebuilt after being destroyed by Typhoon Rusa in 2002 were destroyed again by Maemi"; it just flows slightly better, IMHO. :P
  • Ehh, I don't like yours, so I came up with plan C. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Insured damages from Maemi were estimated at ₩650 billion won ($565 million), mostly due to property damage." This doesn't entirely make sense. I get what you're saying, but the claims were for property damage, and the insurers didn't cause the property damage. Just a nitpick.
  • "The rice crop was the lowest in 23 years" – what, the plants became shorter? :p Again, "harvest" is more appropriate in this context.
  • s/expected economic growth/forecasted economic growth/
  • Any note for "Typhoon Muifa (2011)" in the see also?
  • Please add a hyphen in "1 minute winds" in note #1.

Everything else looks good!

On a side note, are you sure that you want to translate all that stuff for 1846 Havana hurricane? There's 122 pages total and one of the book PDFs isn't copy/paste-able. (I'd also prefer it if you worked on it after TAWX is done with the GA review, since I'm eager to get my first significant Cup points. ;)

Anyway, I'll be glad to support this once these issues are addressed. :) Great work as usual, Hink! I had a lot of fun reviewing this, and look forward to supporting it! :D Cloudchased (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Hopefully I got everything you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I'll support this. Yay! Cloudchased (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- As I have a FAC open myself at the moment, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in a few cases to review. I'm no expert on storms so this will primarily be for prose, organisation and readability. A quick glance at the lead suggested it could use a copyedit, so I've done that as I reviewed -- pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything. Outstanding points:

  • "In early September 2003, the monsoon trough spawned a tropical disturbance near Guam" -- it wasn't quite clear to me from a brief scan of the linked article whether there's only one monsoon trough in the world or not but in any case it seemed to me that some further detail was needed in your article to say just where this trough extends.
  • The Preparations section is very slight compared to the rest of the article -- if there's nothing more to add, I'd suggest merging the information into the relevant subsections of the Impact section.
  • I didn't really want to merge the section, as the info is quite distinct from the impact. I will if you insist, but I feel it's helpful having the preparations as a separate section to show what happened before the storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't insist, particularly if it doesn't faze other reviewers -- there's nothing you can usefully add to flesh it out though? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, that was all I could find from newspapers and other reliable sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Throughout Japan, Maemi killed three people and injured 107, two severely" -- are these three fatalities the ones you've already described or another three? If the latter, should probably reword to "In total, Maemi killed three people in Japan and injured 107, two severely".
  • "Although the typhoon prompted the PAGASA to hoist warnings—and in spite of initial concerns that the cyclone would enhance monsoonal rainfall—Maemi did not cause any damage in the country" -- erm, which country?
  • I had in my mind that PAGASA would imply the Philippines, since the abbreviation was indicated earlier, I added the country to make it easier to understand. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admittedly I didn't check the abbreviation but I think best distinguish the agency from the country in this case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the South Korean government did not request international aid" -- aside from care being needed when employing "however", I question why this sentence is placed where it is. I'd have thought it should be at the start of the paragraph, e.g. "Although the South Korean government did not request international aid, several countries despatched financial assistance", then go into the details you have.
  • Good point! I switched it to the front of the paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were generally good. I changed how you said "surpassed" in context of the barometric pressure, which isn't quite true. Surpass implies greater, but the record was for a lower pressure, so I changed it back to "breaking". In addition, you changed "dropped" to "caused rainfall", which IMO doesn't flow quite as well (so I changed it back), as well as you shortening "heavy rainfall" to "heavy rains", which IMO implies Heavy water, hehe. Hopefully this all works better now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get your point about "surpassed" but "breaking" a pressure reading also sounds odd to me; I can't think of anything better at the moment but perhaps something will come to me. My concern re. rainfall is that when something is dropped, it obviously falls, so "dropping rainfall" sounds tautological. I do think "causing heavy rainfall" or "resulting in heavy rainfall" is much better than "dropping heavy rainfall". In AusEng, BTW, "heavy rain" means "heavy rainfall", not big droplets, but perhaps it's different elsewhere... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's "breaking" a pressure record, not breaking a pressure. For what it's worth, I regularly use "dropping rainfall" in many featured articles, and while I respect your concerns and will change if you insist, but it's even used by the experts - [2] ("dropping heavy rainfall on the Piney Woods"), [3] ("Tropical Storm Bud is dropping heavy rainfall"), [4] ("dropping heavy rainfall"). And that was just a general Google search for ["dropping heavy rainfall" NOAA]. It's a fairly common phrase, and it describes the event accurately IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is anything else needed? It's been five days now, wasn't sure if I did something wrong... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, particularly given your note on my talk page, it was just hard to find sufficient time to concentrate on this again till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine User:Ian Rose. DO you have any more comments? And did I address your concerns? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't blame you for mimicking expert usage or going with what's been permitted before at FAC, so I won't oppose over this point, but neither can I in all conscience support. "Dropping heavy rainfall" still sounds tautological to these untrained ears and I still can't see how "causing heavy rainfall" or "resulting in heavy rainfall", which eliminate the "dropping"/"fall" redundancy, imply something incorrect. If you're still wed to the expression I'm happy to just let Graham, who will have to close this anyway since I've recused, adjudicate on it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for making a bit of a fuss over it, but it's already in featured articles (such as Hurricane Mitch or List of Arizona hurricanes). I'm not wed to the expression, though, and since the FA has been up for nearly two months now with plenty of support, I'll do anything to get it passed! :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm sorry for making a fuss too but OTOH I'd feel a bit guilty if I didn't... ;-) Anyway, tks for that, I see no reason to withhold support now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Typhoon_Maemi/archive1&oldid=1158941848"