Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Chapala/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2020 [1].

Cyclone Chapala[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Cyclone Chapala, which struck one of the poorest parts of the world in the midst of a civil war. To make matters worse, another cyclone hit the same area a few days later. This nomination is for Cyclone Chapala, which I wrote a few years ago, and which I believe is a fine article, worthy of consideration for FAC. I imagine there might be some jargon issues - if anything is too complicated, please let me know, and I'll do my best to make it simpler for the reader. Otherwise, I believe the article holds up well, and I'm happy to address any concerns y'all have. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JC[edit]

I found this FAC by way of your review of my nomination, and figured I'd return the favor. It's a rare pleasure to take in a high-quality article about a storm in this region. I'm reading with a focus on prose, presentation, and precision—I'll leave the image and style reviews to the many capable experts in those areas.

  • Perhaps to best introduce the topic, it's worth mentioning Somalia alongside Yemen in the first sentence?
  • only Cyclone Gonu in 2007 and Cyclone Kyarr in 2019 was stronger in the Arabian Sea. - I see Gonu supported in the body of the article, but not Kyarr.
  • The cyclone first affected Socotra - Redundant in such close proximity to the first mention of the Socotra encounter.
  • I reordered the lede so that Socotra and Somalia impacts are mentioned at the same time as the storm traversing those areas. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amid" twice in two sentences is a little disruptive to the flow of things.
  • the equivalent to several years' worth - "Several years' worth" on its own would suffice.
  • coastal areas, which damaged or destroyed roads - Dangling modifier.
  • After the storm and later Cyclone Megh - "Cyclones Chapala and Megh"?
  • I split the Megh part off into its own sentence, as that's pretty important to the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trough developed along the northeast monsoon on 25 October 2015 off the southwest coast of India,[2] consisting of a fragmented area of convection, or thunderstorms. - This line tripped me up. I'm not sure what "northeast" means in relation to the monsoon. And what consisted of convection? It may be best to split this up for ease of digestion.
  • the circulation became better defined, amplified by decreasing wind shear - I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say decreasing wind shear amplifies organization. It would simply stop prohibiting it.
  • Initially, the storm moved slowly to the north due to a ridge to the northeast, although the track shifted to the west due to another ridge to the northwest. - While I can visualize this pattern, it might not be immediately obvious how changes in track can be directly attributed to ridges. For that matter, the source mentions anticyclones but not ridges, which is a subtle yet distinct difference.
  • I mistakenly synonymized anticyclone and ridges there and butchered it, so I changed it to the two anticyclones, per IMD. Good catch. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • favorable conditions related to the Madden–Julian oscillation - Without knowing how the MJO was favorable (phase and amplitude), this doesn't add much. I'd prefer more detail be added, but it could probably just be removed harmlessly.
  • the system rapidly intensified beginning on 29 October. - While not strictly necessary, it would be helpful to know the constraints of the RI that took place (eg., it deepened by x mb in y hours), since it's usually a technical term rather than simply a descriptive one.
  • prompting the JTWC to upgrade Chapala to the equivalence of a hurricane - Since the SSHS isn't applicable, is it fair to call this threshold an "upgrade" rather than simply an acknowledgement?
  • amplified by vigorous outflow and continued low wind shear. - Same concern as earlier, though perhaps not as jarring in this case.
  • Recursive contradictions ("However, [it weakened] ... However, [it was still pretty strong]") in the third MH paragraph could stand to be reworded.
  • marking the area's first hurricane-force impact - Is there a reason not to use "island" instead of the vague "area" here?
  • The structure became disorganized that day - Now almost three sentences after the last mention of a date, "that day" is on the cusp of losing meaning.
  • True, I removed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The structure became disorganized [...] causing cooler and drier air to enter the circulation. - Circular logic?
  • "Allowing" :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the JTWC, Chapala moved ashore and immediately turned back over water,[22] although the agency soon reassessed the center as being over land.[23] - To avoid falling into the trap of chronicling agencies instead of storms, maybe you could just say more broadly, "the center straddled the coast before heading inland", or something?
  • advised migrants and refugees from Somalia and Ethiopia from crossing to Yemen due to anticipated rough seas from Chapala. - That's a lot of "froms"!
  • An Iranian-flagged vessel capsized offshore on 1 November, killing one person and leaving many others missing. - Reviewing the given source, it seems uncertain that there were others aboard. The source also claims "conflicting reports" on the role Chapala played in the incident. I'm sure the connection is there, I'd just like to have more corroborating sources, if possible.
  • Re-reading the source, given the date (11/1 was after the storm), I tend to think it wasn't related to Chapala, so I removed it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationwide, the storm wrecked 350 houses, - The source specifies that this figure pertains to the Bari Region. I'm not sure how much damage occurred in the rest of Puntland, but "nationwide" may lead to an assumption that isn't supported.
  • Eastern Puntland was hardest-hit,[30] where 45 km (28 mi) of roads were damaged. - Dangling participle.
  • Re: 28 damaged schoolrooms in Puntland, the source offers a lot more details about this... if nothing else, the districts would be nice, since Puntland is huge. Also, the source says 13 more schools were affected in the Gardafuul province, so not sure how that would factor-in.
  • Ehh, I always hate when the sources say "were affected", because that's not too useful. If it was "flooded" or "damaged", I'd probably mention, but since it's just "affected", I opted not to add that Gardafuul bit - that said, I changed it to 9 damaged schools, as opposed to classrooms. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the rains killed 3,000 sheep and goats - Pedantic, but those would have to be some massive raindrops.
  • plastic sheets for housing. - Maybe remove "for housing", to make it clear that people didn't have to actually make houses out of the sheeting?
  • Officials in Hadramawt recommended that residents in coastal areas evacuate. - I would move this back one line to avoid jumping back and forth between organizations in power.
  • On the offshore Socotra island - "On Socotra"? I think it's adequately established as an island by now.
  • On 1 November, Chapala became the first hurricane-force storm to impact Socotra since 1922, - Repeat of this fact in the MH.
  • Chapala wrecked 237 homes on the island and damaged at least 497 homes,[43][45] forcing about 18,000 people to leave their homes. - Three homes for the price of one.
  • So the gov't debunked the fatality reports on Socotra, but what of the 200 injuries?
  • Clarified the bit about fatalities, it was actually OCHA, not government. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • High winds, strong waves and heavy rainfall - You've been using the Oxford comma throughout the rest of the article.
  • Comma'n! (come on, I said to myself mentally in disappointment for missing this comma) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chapala damaged seven health facilities. - In Mukalla?
  • Not in order, but mentioning before I forget... what's the source for the $100m damage total in the infobox?
  • Neighboring Oman sent 14 cargo planes' worth of food totaling 270 tons worth of goods. The planes mostly carried food, - Worth, worth; food, food.
  • carrying 500 tons of food [...] and 1,200 barrels of food.
  • To prevent the spread of disease - Was this after or before the dengue fever outbreak?

These are some of the things that jumped out at me in my first read-through. The content is good, there's just a little polishing to be done I think. I thought the aftermath section did an especially good job in making sense of what were essentially three concurrent crises. That must have been daunting to sort out. Happy to jump in and help copyedit once some of these ambiguities are cleared up. Overall, nice work so far! – Juliancolton | Talk 05:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JC! I believe I addressed your comments, and the article is much better off with your feedback. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thanks for addressing this laundry list of comments so quickly! Very happy with the changes made. Pending the resolution to TA's concerns below and one more read-through, I have one more comment before I support. WP:LEADLENGTH recommends a 1-2 paragraph intro for articles with <15kb of readable prose (Chapala is around 14kb). Do you think you'd be able to adequately summarize the storm in two paragraphs, or is it better the way it is now? – Juliancolton | Talk 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I got it down to a reasonable length for two paragraphs. What do you think? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

← The reworked lead looks great. I just have a few more remarks to go along with my final look (and I'm making a few small changes myself, so if anything isn't to your liking, please feel free to revert).

  • On 31 October, the outer eyewall became established, - Does this signify the end of the ERC? If so, maybe that could be made a tad more explicit?
  • the Yemeni Army and Government had withdrawn from areas in April - I've been trying to warm up to this construction for a couple days, but I think I've decided "withdrawn from areas" is just too vague to work.
  • The Socotra section: three consecutive sentences start with "Chapala". I'm not sure how to remedy this without clashing with your writing style, so I'll defer to you. Also, there's a commented-out note about a discrepancy between sources. Has this been resolved?
  • I changed the second to "the cyclone" - hope that's not too lazy and it works! And yes that commented out note was resolved, that was more of a note for me. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Residents in Mukalla took shelter in schools as the storm caused the sea level to rise by 9 m (30 ft), destroying the city's seafront. - I'm having trouble verifying everything before the comma, and am a little incredulous regarding the 30-ft surge. Maybe a reference got accidentally moved somewhere along the line.

And I think that's it! – Juliancolton | Talk 04:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perfect - I'm satisfied. Nicely done. Support on prose, verifiability, and comprehensiveness. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13[edit]

  • "After leaving the island, unfavorable environmental conditions caused Chapala to weaken, although it maintained much of its intensity upon entering the Gulf of Aden on 2 November, becoming the strongest known cyclone in that body of water." - This sentence feels very rigid to me. We go from talking about weakening, to actually it maintained to most of its intensity, to it was the strongest cyclone in that body of water. How about something like "While Chapala encountered less favorable conditions after leaving the island, it maintained much of its intensity; upon entering the Gulf of Aden on 2 November, it became the strongest known cyclone in that body of water." or something similar?
  • "Chapala weakened into a remnant the next day over land." - A remnant what?
  • "Several years' worth of heavy rainfall inundated coastal areas, which damaged roads and hundreds of homes." - Should years be possessive here? You probably know better than me, but I think years is fine on its own.
  • Years' needs to be possessive so it functions as an adjective for worth. You could say "The equivalent of several years worth of heavy rainfall", but you get the same effect with the current verbiage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system moved slowly to the north at first, steered by an anticyclone to the northeast, before beginning a westward trajectory due to another anticyclone to its northwest." - This is a lot of directions and anticyclones in the same sentence. Can you simplify or break into two?
  • "The storm developed well-defined rainbands as the structure consolidated more, with well-established outflow to the north and south, as well as an eye feature." - Mentioning good outflow north and south seems repetitive since you said this in the earlier paragraph.
  • "By early on 30 October, Chapala had developed a well-defined eye 22 km (14 mi) wide, amplified by vigorous outflow." - We get it bro, you outflow.
  • "Based on their estimate, Chapala was the second-strongest cyclone on record over the Arabian Sea; at the time, only Cyclone Gonu of 2007 was stronger,[1] as was Cyclone Kyarr in 2019." - I'm confused. Kyarr has 1-min sustained winds of 150 mph. That's equivalent, not stronger.
  • Reading the MH, it seems important to note Chapala's EWRC (alongside the less favorable environment) for the slight decrease in strength back in the lede.
  • Also, I see the MH mentions that Chapala actually became better organized upn entering the Gulf of Aden before weakening after. This is worth mentioning in the lede too and may require additional edits to my originally suggested sentence.
  • Given JC's comments, I don't want to add anything else to the lead. It's still factual that the storm was weaker in the Gulf of Aden than at its peak. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Bari region, Chapala wrecked 350 houses" - The lede says 250. Also, you mentioned "thousands of animals," which made me think in terms of 1-9k, not >25,000. Change to tens of thousands?
  • "Yemen's meteorological agency told residents to stay at least one kilometre inland." - Probably need to convert this?
  • I'm seeing the word "wrecked" used a lot throughout the article. Switch it up.
  • "bout 80% of the village of Jilah was flooded" - Missing a etter, artner.
  • hanks! (aww, that made me think of Tom Hanks, who has Covid, curses!) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The planes mostly carried food,[1] as well as blankets and tents." - We already established the planes carried food. Maybe just make this sentence about the blankets and tents?
  • "In the days after the storm, airstrikes and attacks continued elsewhere in the country,[1] and only days after Chapala, Cyclone Megh followed a similar path, causing additional damage." - This is a lot in one sentence.
  • References 26, 37, 42, and 51 are dead.

Otherwise, great work! 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review TA! The article is much better off. I hope you found the writing to your liking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support! 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

Adding this section in... give a bit of time for me to add my comments. NoahTalk 15:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images
  • Please add alt text to the images. NoahTalk 01:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

General: The met in the lead seems a bit rushed at first. We go from it developing in one sentence to reaching peak intensity in the next. NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You said it developed but never said what it formed into. Where did it come from? Was it monitored beforehand? Was it a D/DD at any point or did it just form into a CS? Just some food for thought. NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and rapidly intensified beginning the next day" Probably better to say during, throughout, or over. NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contributed an outbreaks of locusts and dengue fever" Grammar NoahTalk 16:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorological History
  • मैंने लेख को लिंक किया। ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mbar isnt used in this basin NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "operationally it was held at 250 km/h (155 mph), though this was lowered in post-storm analysis." this is a bit much for readers outside the field of meteorology. Could this be included as a note (attached to peak winds)? NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend mentioning the peak pressure. NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "JTWC anticipated strengthening to Category 5-equivalent." Should be 'into a' NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend moving dates/times to the middle of the sentences for the most part instead of them being located at the beginning to avoid chopping off the flow of the prose. Just seems to be a lot of it concentrated towards the end of the met. NoahTalk 16:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I never noticed that about my writing, good idea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the lead/infobox don't appear to be cited anywhere - for example the 3-minute sustained figure (the article text actually gives a different figure)
  • Fixed rounding error for the wind speed. Everything else (the dates, deaths, pressure, damage total, and areas affected) are all cited in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would like to see a citation for the Arabic name. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed it, since I'm not sure where it originated from, and on second thought, it's the English Wikipedia, I don't think it's needed. I'd hate for some source to provide a mistranslation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "Modern Indian Baby Names" a high-quality reliable source? Weather Underground? Daily Mirror?
  • I replaced the reference for "Modern Indian Baby Names" with the World meteorological organization. I replaced the first WU reference with an article from The Guardian. The second one, I would argue it is high-quality/reliable, as the website tracks weather data from around the world. Sometimes, it is the only record of some weather stations, as most are automatic. I removed the Daily Mirror bit, I wasn't familiar with that as a parody website! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For context, the author of that Wunderground entry, Robert Henson, is a council member of the American Meteorological Society (ref), chaired a couple of its subcommittees, and has been published in Nature, Audubon, Monthly Weather Review, etc., which I'd argue satisfy the "established expert on the subject matter" clause for WP:RSSELF. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAO is not a work, Scientific American is - check throughout, there are several instances of this type of error
  • I changed most of the references so change FAO (and other UN agencies) as the publisher, and changed ReliefWeb (the main source for these documents) with the "via" parameter of cite report. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still seeing some errors of this type, eg The Guardian is correctly italicized in FN24 but not 36 (and where'd that AP credit come from in 24?). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through more of the citations and converted a few more (and removed the AP credit, I saw AP credited in the image but was mistaken to list it as agency). I wanted to check, is CNN in FN13 formatted right? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN22 is missing date
  • FN23 is missing date and has the same info in two parameters
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for news references
  • FN37 is missing author, check for others
  • FN48 is missing publication date, check for others.
  • I went through the references and checked, adding other missing publishers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending significant citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) for the review. I went through the references and cleaned up a lot of them. References aren't my strongest suit, so if I've missed any (of if it's so bad that I need a dedicated source reviewer), then let me know. I apologize for taking a few days to reply. I've had to adjust to teaching an online class (which was today, it went well). So I can focus again on this FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. In addition to pending points above I also noticed a few additional errors on this pass: FN47 is incomplete, and the author name for 35 appears incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added AFP to FN47. Also, I felt the same thing about RN35's author "Goth Mohamed Goth", but Google backs up that being his full name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), was there anything else that I can do to address your opposition? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my oppose a few days ago! Just not used to having a header going along with it ;-) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki! Hope your wiki'ing is going well these days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Truflip99[edit]

  • It developed as a depression on 28 October off western India, which strengthened a day later into a cyclonic storm. -- "which" --> "and" sans comma would sound better, I think
  • making Chapala tied for the second strongest cyclone on record in the Arabian Sea. -- should you mention with which other storm?
  • I explained it in the "meteorological history", but I didn't want to add too much to the lead, especially because the basis for it being the 2nd strongest is unofficial. I changed it to "among the strongest storms on record in the Arabian Sea." ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early on 3 November, the storm made landfall near Mukalla, Yemen, as a very severe cyclonic storm, making it the strongest storm on record to strike the nation. -- a very severe cyclonic storm doesn't really carry much weight as to why it became Yemen's strongest without including sus winds; better to replace "making it" --> "and" sans comma
  • After Chapala and later Megh -- you don't need to say "later", IMO
  • I removed "later" but added "cyclones" before "Chapala" here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • residual storm effects contributed to an outbreaks of locusts and dengue fever -- grammar
  • Nine hours later, the agency upgraded it further to a deep depression -- you don't need to say "further" as this is the first upgrade
  • due to the ridge to the north. -- I'm not privy to this topic so I'm not sure what "the ridge" is in this context, but shouldn't it be "a ridge"?
  • and the JTWC anticipated strengthening into Category 5-equivalent. -- anticipated it strengthening into a..
  • After the cyclone bypassed Socotra -- As you had just said in the previous sentence that it impacted Socotra, not sure that bypass is the right word...
  • The United Arab Emirates also sent a ship and a plane, carrying 500 tons of food -- omit comma
  • residents built a makeshift pathway to help distribution of aid -- the distribution of aid
  • Collectively, the passages of Chapala and Megh near Socotra -- Collectively --> Together
  • due to house damage -- "house damage" doesn't sound good...
  • A locust outbreak also began in December 2015 due to the floods. -- "began" needs an end date unless it's still ongoing, in which case you would still need to state that. I would suggest "occurred"
  • 41,000 l (11,000 US gal) -- typically want abbr off in prose

Looks good overall. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Truflip99! I believe I addressed all of your comments. Cheers ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2020 (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/Cyclone_Chapala/archive1&oldid=952068797"