Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Kai-tak/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tropical Storm Kai-tak

[edit]
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because the article passed the GA nom and is available for FA, will list more sources (Mostly from ReliefWeb) after seen problems are fixed.

Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from your talk page:

  • To get the article to FA, you'll probably have to expand the meteorological history to an additional paragraph, as that's still on the short side. Use more JTWC advisories. Find out what spawned it in the first place. Include more about why the storm moved the way that it did. Also, its path through the Philippines could use more detail.  Done
  • Some of the wording is still clunky, like "On December 18, NASA said that the storm was about 23 miles per hour (37 km/h) and had a rainfall rate of 192.786 millimetres (7.5900 in) per hour." I'm not sure what this is adding.  Done
  • I always felt like there could be more detail. Maybe having a section for all of the Philippines, and then a more thorough account island-by-island? For example, there's nothing about Palawan. I would start with a paragraph for Samar, then one for the Visayas, then one for Palawan.
  • There are also practically no journal articles, and there are few local sources.  Done
  • Your citations are going to be an issue, as they're not as clean and proper as it could be. Capitalization should be consistent. Make sure every reference has a publisher, as a lot are missing.
  • Expand on Malaysia/Brunei impacts. It's only one sentence right now.  Done
Expanded, how to link a PDF? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which pdf do you want to link? Typically, use either cite web or cite report. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering Tembin was just a few days later, the aftermath doesn't really mention anything about rebuilding. There should probably be something about that.  Done
What do you mean by this? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any rebuilding after the storm? And did the passage of Tembin affect the rebuilding at all? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more information for rebuilding, I don't have any information about Tembin affecting the rebuilding though. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these make sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the island-to-island, can It be by region instead? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you want the layout to be? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Pinging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem #1

[edit]
What do you want to include in the additional paragraph? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all parts of the met history can be fleshed out more. The first paragraph should go more into its origins: what produced the area of convection in the first place? And then more into the conditions that allowed it to develop or not. The second paragraph could cover its development, peak intensity, and landfalls in the Philippines. The Philippine landfalls are all rushed into one sentence, but I think that can be expanded more. Go into the storm's structure as it developed, approached, and moved over land. The final paragraph should cover the storm's reintensification into a tropical storm. That was one of the issues you kept having in the GA nomination, but I didn't want that to hold it up from being a good article. Instead, I'll say again here that there should be more on the storm after the Philippines. Discuss the conditions in the South China Sea, its movement, how and why the convection increased. Was the reintensification expected or not? Why did it turn back to the southeast at the end of its duration? There is a lot more that can be added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said in the GA review that the first paragraph (now the second) should be ended after the storm was internationally named. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded met history, can you check? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What was the origins of the storm? The answer is a near-equatorial trough, which you can cite to the Bureau of Meteorology here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What produced the area of convection in the first place?
  • Added more information about this.
  • Not really. Where did the storm come from in the first place? Was it a monsoon trough? A tropical wave? An upper-level low? Also you introduced an error. The JTWC did not classify it as a tropical depression on November 10th - they didn't start issuing warnings til the 13th, per the ATCR. Further, although the JMA may have said it was a depression on the 11th, their best track has it forming on the 13th. The wording does not reflect the official sources. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What allowed it to develop or not? What were the developmental conditions, such as wind shear, water temperature, or other stuff?
  • " The following day, the storm started moving towards Samar Island, going back and forth over the following days. " - be more specific.
  • Added more information.
  • Yea, but it's still clunky. "The following day, the storm started moving towards Samar Island, going back and forth over the following days in a circle-like manner, later moving towards Northern Samar." - you mention twice its movement toward Samar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe list each Philippine landfall one sentence at a time, while also discussing the track a bit? The Philippine landfalls are still rushed into one sentence. Go into the storm's structure as it developed, approached, and moved over land. The final paragraph should cover the storm's reintensification into a tropical storm.
  • Still needs more for the ending, once it got into the South China Sea up to its dissipation. There should be more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Going to split met history into 4 paragraphs - 1st will end in the Philippine naming, 2nd will end in the international naming, 3rd will end before the landfalls, and 4th will end when dissipated. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the issues, I'm going to try to add all the prognostic reasonings (32 of them) to the article, since they are mostly text and can describe the storm well. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just going to not add those sources and expand reasoning. By the way, I think I fixed all the problems, though I can't find any information post-dissipation. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem #2

[edit]
What makes you think the wording is "clunky"? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Several parts make me wonder if the information is accurate, like the formation date, or why it weakened/strengthened. Also, "better convection" should be explained how it was "better". Was the convection stronger? More widespread? More organized? Here's another example of clunky wording:
  • "On December 16. the storm weakened even more, turning into a tropical depression, later making landfalls in the northern part of Samar on December 16, making landfall on all three provinces." The italicized part is either redundant or confusing. Did it hit Northern Samar, and Western Samar, and Eastern Samar? I don't think it did, so this might be incorrect info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The formation date seems accurate to me. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says November 13th, which is backed up by the JMA BT and IBTRACS. The met history says that it formed on November 10, which is incorrect. The JTWC did not classify it as a tropical depression on the 10th. Please correct the false information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that's clunky is the unit abbreviation. The first time the unit is mentioned in the article (like miles or whatever), it should be spelled out, but every later usage should be abbreviated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, I see a few instances of "kilometres" or "kilometres per hour" being spelled out. I also see an instance of "east-northwest", whatever that direction is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably done? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still have "500 kilometres (310 mi)". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You still have this sentence - "On December 18, NASA said that the storm was about 23 miles per hour (37 kilometres per hour) and had a rainfall rate of 192.786 millimetres (7.5900 in) per hour." That spells out the units unnecessarily. Also, I have no idea what this sentence means. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-worded it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also clunky is that three refs are in all caps. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should explain what " Public Storm Warning Signal #2" is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add a source for that information? I like that it's a note, good choice doing that though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the DYK review, you need sources for all of the images.

Do all of these issues make sense, TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs)? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you need sources for all the images? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. How else can we tell the image license for the image? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Add a source for every image in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a source for everything except the "Own work" ones. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did the problems you pointed out.. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem #5

[edit]

Can you be more specific about my citation issues? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is still one citation that is in all caps. You're also missing publishers for a lot of references. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like it's required to have publishers. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is required. You should add the publishers for all of the citations that are missing them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it okay to not include a publisher in sources which already include the websites? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check out ref 19, for example, which doesn't have a publisher. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, anything else? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, here is a source from PAGASA that should help. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tropical_Storm_Kai-tak/archive1&oldid=1245489250"