Jump to content

Talk:Effects of Typhoon Yagi in Vietnam

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

About the sustained winds in the NCHMF subbox

[edit]

Hi @Final-Fantasy-HH, I'm starting this thread to discuss the edits that have been made to the NCHMF section of the infobox, and I hope you can take your time to review my points and express your thoughts. Specifically, you changed the 97 kn (50 m/s) sustained winds figure in the subbox to 85 kn (44 m/s). I initially agreed with the 85 kn figure and understand why it felt appropriate. However, after further thinking, I’ve reconsidered and wanted to discuss why I think the 50 m/s figure might actually be more suitable for the infobox.

According to p. 3 of Vietnam's first official report to the ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee written by the Vietnam Meteorological and Hydrological Administration (VNMHA), Typhoon Yagi made landfall in the Quảng Ninh-Hải Phòng area with the strongest winds near the center reaching Force 15, with gusts exceeding Force 17. This is corroborated with observations at Bãi Cháy station given in p. 5, which recorded the strongest winds at landfall with maximum 2-min sustained winds of 50 m/s (97 kn) occurring at 13:21 local time on September 7, 2024, and peak gusts of 63 m/s (122 kn). However, it is also noteworthy that Vietnamese authorities submitted a revised report just days later, where the only modification was to change the sustained wind speeds at Bãi Cháy down to 45 m/s (87 kn) and peak gusts down to 62 m/s (121 kn). After careful consideration, I've come to the conclusion that the revision was likely not issued due to an error in the original report, the only purpose of issuing a revised report was to change the readings at Bãi Cháy and nothing else, and that the 50 m/s (97 kn) figure might better reflect the storm's intensity, making it suitable for the infobox.

  • The original report wrote unambigously and specifically that the typhoon made landfall at Force 15, with max. sustained winds recorded at Bãi Cháy station of 50 m/s (97 kn), recorded at 13:21 local time. If the 50 m/s (97 kn) figure was a typo, it would be only the number that is wrong, but we know that typos are unintentional errors that often affect small details, and usually don't add substantive information by themselves. The 50 m/s figure was corroborated by other statements in the original report, such as the statement that the typhoon made landfall at Forces 14-15 (p. 3, "By the evening of 7th September, the TY YAGI made landfall in the Quang Ninh–Hai Phong area with strong winds at levels 12–14, near the TC’s center reaching level 15, with gusts exceeding level 17"; p. 4, "Due to the impact of the TY YAGI, the Gulf of Tonkin experienced strong winds at levels 12–13, with areas near the central of the TC reaching levels 14–15"). Even if the Force 15 statement itself was a typo, the typo would just affect one existing number, not add another number (for instance, the statement on p. 4 "Due to the impact of the TY YAGI, the Gulf of Tonkin experienced strong winds at levels 12–13, with areas near the central of the TC reaching levels 14–15" would be "Due to the impact of the TY YAGI, the Gulf of Tonkin experienced strong winds at levels 12–13, with areas near the central of the TC reaching level 15" if the "15" was indeed a typo; "levels 14–15" indicated a conscious effort by the author, not a "14 -> 15" typo).
  • Comparison of two reports (the original one and the revised one) also reveals multiple clues. We can see that both reports are exactly the same, including typos and grammatical errors present in both the original and revised reports. The only thing modified in the revised report is the reading at Bãi Cháy station, which had sustained winds revised from 50 m/s (97 kn) to 45 m/s (87 kn), and peak gusts revised from 63 m/s (122 kn) to 62 m/s (121 kn). It is indeed interesting that in the revised report, other errors like typos, grammatical errors, and even the data input error at the Nho Quan station (p. 5 of both versions) where both sustained winds and peak gusts are the same, aren't fixed; the only thing modified is the Bãi Cháy reading, which suggests that the purpose of issuing a revision is not to fix mistakes, but to change the Bãi Cháy readings so they align with prior domestic reports, thus avoiding the 50 m/s (97 kn) statement.

An explicit correction or error acknowledgement was completely absent in the revision. Furthermore, the 50 m/s (97 kn) 2-min sustained winds in the report aligns better with international forecasts (JMA estimated the typhoon as making landfall as a "Very strong typhoon", with 10-min sustained winds of 90 kn (46 m/s), JTWC estimated the typhoon as a Category 3-equivalent typhoon at landfall, with 1-min sustained winds of 110 kn (57 m/s), CMA estimated the typhoon as having re-intensified to 2-min sustained winds of 60 m/s (120 kn) just before landfall in Vietnam[1]). All of these made me think that the 50 m/s figure might better represent the storm's true intensity. Given the potential for my analysis to be seen as circumstantial, I think it would be fair to include the original 50 m/s figure in the infobox while noting the 45 m/s revision in the article text (which is what we've been doing anyways). That way, we present both perspectives and let readers interpret the information by themselves.

Thanks for reading all the way down here - do you think this reasoning works, or should we focus strictly on the final, revised official figure? I'm waiting for your response to refine how we present this to ensure it's both accurate and balanced.

References

  1. ^ "超强台风"摩羯"即将登陆越南沿海 7日夜间起海南省风雨天气明显减弱". Hainan Meteorological Administration (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2025-01-06.

wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at user talk page. Translations will be available later wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • Reviewed:
Moved to mainspace by Wolf20482 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 02:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. EF5 18:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Effects of Typhoon Yagi in Vietnam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HurricaneEdgar (talk · contribs) 02:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Article is of decent size. A third lead paragraph could be added, although not required. Since this article is about the effects of Yagi in Vietnam, the dates should be formatted as Day/Month/Year, instead of Month/Day/Year. Not sure why the main article uses the MDY format.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    See below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I saw no major issues, seems to address everything about Yagi's effects adequately.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I didn't see any weasel words at a glance, so good here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No recent edit wars, so easy pass.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    A few things here. A "{{clear}}" template should be added at the end of the "Background" section, so that the infobox isn't pushing on the image below. File:Yagi_2024_path.png is causing text sandwiching with the text between it and the infobox, so the path image should be removed (feel free to get a second opinion on this, though). More sandwiching is going on between File:Yagi_2024-09-04_0515Z.jpg and File:NOAA_CPC_Global_Tropics_Hazards_Outlook_082724.png, one should be removed (I'd personally remove the hurricane image, as there is already one in the infobox).
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Ref spotcheck

[edit]
Pinging nominator @HurricaneEdgar:. :) EF5 19:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm not the nominator, but I'm also a significant contributor to the article, so I'll make some of the edits suggested here. Is the DMY format really required for this article, or just a suggestion? I'm asking that since there are many references where I've manually entered MDY into the citation templates (because at the time I didn't know I can just type in YYYY-MM-DD and it would automatically format the date based on the "Use xxx dates" template on the top), so there's going to be lots of work if it's to be changed into DMY as a requirement wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say yes, as it's a relatively significant prose issue. Again, I'm really not sure why the Typhoon Yagi article is formatted that way. EF5 13:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @EF5, the same practice that we use in the Northern Hemisphere basin is MM/DD/YYYY, as this format is commonly used by metrologist such as the JMA and the JTWC. An example of MM/DD/YYYY can be found in the article Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean. HurricaneEdgar 13:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the effects of Yagi in Vietnam, and per WP:DATEOVER MDY/DMY should be used if it has "strong national ties to a topic". The JTWC is based in the US, so I don't see the relevance, and Yagi never hit Japan, which JMA services. I think a wider discussion on this may be needed. EF5 13:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification regarding MDY/DMY; I have personally made the change. HurricaneEdgar 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:DATEOVER, and according to this line: "Note that MOS:DATETIES does not apply to topics related to non-English-speaking countries. For example, articles on French topics do not necessarily use DMY, even though DMY is the predominant format in France.", DMY isn't really a requirement for this article though, since Vietnam isn't considered an English speaking country. I may be missing something though, if that's the case please tell me what it is wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's for consistency with the Vietnam article. You're right, it's not formally required, but I think a wider discussion not on a GAN review would be beneficial. EF5 14:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, that really makes sense wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the image, I removed the path since the article focuses on the effect rather than the overall impact across the countries, as well as in File:Yagi 2024-09-04 0515Z.jpg HurricaneEdgar 13:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've reformatted the references as suggested. For [19], I replaced it with a source from France24, which also effectively supports the statement. For [94] and [98], I don't think they should be merged, because they're different articles, one supporting the 7.065 trillion VND economic damages and one supporting the specific transportation and agricultural losses. There are definitely other ways to format that, but I'm just going to stick to that for now.
For the background section, I added the "clear" template at the end of it, but it doesn't seem to be doing much. For other image related issues, I haven't made any edits yet since I feel this still needs a second opinion (including from the nominator) wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must not have seen that. Yes, don't merge 94 and 98. EF5 13:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of now it looks like almost all issues mentioned here have been resolved wolf20482 🐺 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_Typhoon_Yagi_in_Vietnam&oldid=1269364928"