Talk:Cyclone Luban

Cyclone Luban has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Cyclone Luban is part of the Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 2, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
March 22, 2019	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / North Indian / 2018 FT TF Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the North Indian Ocean work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the 2018 Featured Topic task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Luban/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 07:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this tomorrow I suspect - seeing as there's n football on to distract me and I just have a thermo quiz to study for so between posting on a political forum and wiki, I'll have plenty of time tomorrow. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any update @Yellow Evan:? This is why I don't like people claiming GA reviews. Hope my annoyance with the process doesn't make you a harsh reviewer :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was distracted by other stuff online. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"at least 135 kilometres per hour (85 miles per hour). " you don't usually spell out units in your articles. Why here? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:MOSNUM, you're supposed to write out the units the first time upon their usage. Most other articles should be changed, but that would be a lot of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime that comes up on an FAC, I point out that units like mph and kmh and mbar and hPa are rarely spelled out in the real world. You also don't spell out mm and inches in this article as well. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I linked and piped then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Damage in the country was estimated at $1 billion (2018 USD)" you use US$ later on though. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an abbreviation for 2018 USD. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but FTR, I usually just leave a note saying all values are in 2018 unless otherwise noted but with it being so recent, I'm not convinced you need to mention the year at all. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I changed it to a note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any more impact in the lead? In terms of statistics, you only mention the number of people killed and the damage total. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a summary, I felt that was sufficient. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"due to anticipated development in cyclone computer modeling." this is nitpicky but that phrase seems un-meterological. Maybe switch to just "due to projections from tropical cyclone forecast models"? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like that writing! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The circulation slowly became more defined,[3] developing a distinct low pressure area on October 5" that seems redundant as I'm not sure what you mean by distinct. If it was closed, mention that but otherwise, just axe the second bit and perhaps combine with the previous sentence. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Department of redundancy department? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Luban coexisted with Vere Severe Cyclonic Storm Titli, marking the first time since 1977 that two storms of such intensity were active at the same time in the North Indian Ocean.[1]" you should mention this before the JTWC bit because IMD uses VSCS, not the JTWC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"due to upwelling, despite otherwise favorable conditions." it's not really clear here that upwelling is caused by slow movement (and the wikilink doesn't make it any clearer). But I'm not sure how to word this better without a really awkward sentence. I'd probably write this as "Influenced by two ridges, Luban resulted in slow motion that caused the storm to upwell cold water from its wind field, resulting in a weakening trend that started on October 11" but I'd get yelled at if I put this in a GAN. Fundamentally, the problem here is that you're trying to mention so many things at once:

- The storm was influenced by two ridges.

- The storm was moving slowly as a result

- As a result of the storm's slow motion, it started upwelling cold water

- As a result of the upwelling, it weakened.

- Atmospheric conditions were conducive.

Maybe move the sandwiched between two ridges and slow motion bit elsewhere? I could see it fitting in the final sentence of the previous paragraph. Or you could merge it with the next sentence. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I split it up, tell me if it's OK. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than before, which is fine given the circumstances. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The United Nations Population Fund moved 1,250 rapid response kits to coastal areas of Yemen in anticipation of Luban's landfall. Medical teams also moved to the region on standby in preparation for storm victims.[23]" If I was writing this, I'd link to United Nations Population Fund. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose... ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Oman Charitable Organization sent seven trucks with food and other supplies to eastern Yemen. The World Health Organization sent three tons of medical supplies, including kits for cholera, malaria, and general trauma.[29][27]" order the refs numerically. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"About 10 days after the storm struck, the Emirates Red Crescent reconnected seven villages after clearing debris and restoring the dirt roads.[30] " same here with Red Crescent Society of the United Arab Emirates. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it's good. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the review! I hope you're faring well this winter. May your research into these destructive forces of nature be balanced by the more positive sides of live. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]