Talk:Cyclone Mala

To do

Based on the new criteria for storms this is a decent article. I'd only put it at start-class though. — jdorje (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. That's what I expected for a storm from that area just 1 day after landfall. With time there'll be more information. Hurricanehink 00:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've upped to B-class, largely because no more information is likely to come out (and this article is pretty complete and high-quality as it is). —Cuiviénen, Monday, 1 May 2006 @ 22:26 UTC

"...Super Cyclonic Storm Mala, was the strongest tropical cyclone of the 2006 North Indian cyclone season...", bit early to say that? --Mikoyan21 09:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I put in a little note "As of April". Is that fine, or should it actually be said? Currently, it is within <!--'s. Hurricanehink 11:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this a potential GA? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but some of the links no longer work. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, only five of them work. Good kitty (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies

Is Mala a Super Cyclone or not? While most of the article says 'Very Severe', the caption to the bottom picture states that Mala was a super cyclone. Which one is it?Omni ND 18:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

When I originally made the article, I put super cyclone, but I guess someone changed it. I really don't know. Hurricanehink 19:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The highest it ever got was 100-110kts so I changed it to its correct category.P.K. 21:20, 2 May 2006 (GMT)

Is that 1 or 10 minute sustained winds?--Mikoyan21 21:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

RSMC New Delhi use the standard 10 minute average. Why has it been changed back to a super cyclonic storm? That would be 120kts but this was the advisory when it was at its strongest.

VERY SEVERE CYCLONIC STORM “MALA” ADVISORY NO. TWENTY SEVEN ISSUED AT 2100 UTC OF 28TH APRIL 2006 BASED ON 1800 UTC CHARTS OF 28TH APRIL 2006. THE VERY SEVERE CYCLONIC STORM OVER EAST-CENTRAL BAY OF BENGAL MOVED SLIGHTLY NORTHEASTWARDS AND LAY CENTERED AT 1800 UTC NEAR LAT. 16.0 N AND LONG. 93.0 E ABOUT 500 KM NORTH OF PORTBLAIR. THE SYSTEM IS LIKELY TO INTENSIFY FURTHER AND MOVE IN A NORTHEASTERLY DIRECTION TOWARDS ARAKAN COAST WITH A POSSIBLE LANDFALL SOUTH OF SANDWAY(48080) ARROUND 0600 UTC OF 29 APRIL. SATELLITE IMAGERY SHOWS CLEAR EYE AND ASSOCIATED BANDING FEATURES. CURRENT INTENSITY IS T5.5 RPT T5.5. ESTIMATED CENTRAL PRESSURE 954 hPa. MAXIMUM SUSTAINED SURFACE WINDS 100-110 KT GUSTING TO 120 KT AROUND THE SYSTEM CENTRE. STATE OF SEA WILL BE PHENOMENAL.

FORECAST INTENSITY T6.0 AFTER 12 HOURS. P.K. 8:19, 3 May 2006 (GMT)

This appears to be correct. I';ve changed it to Vere Severe again. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 4 May 2006 @ 01:17 UTC

What is the peak intensity? Also, the link given for the pressure reference has no mention to the pressure. Hurricanehink 02:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Should it be 100 or 110 knots? And isn't it 3-minutes not 10? It's too bad there will never be a final report. Good kitty (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Most of the reference links deliver 404-errors. --213.155.231.26 (talk) 16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Cyclonebiskit, I am going to being reviewing this article today. Hope you aren't too busy at the National Hurricane Center and have enough time to fix these errors. :P --12george1 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• "and Mala subsequently underwent rapid intensification which culminated in it attaining its peak." - You should try to avoid using it/its more than once in a sentence. My suggestion would be to replace "it" with "the cyclone".
• "In contrast to Mala's intensity, damage was relatively minimal across Myanmar due to adequate early warnings. Timely and effective evacuations minimized loss of life along the coast." - I think you should find a way to merge these two sentences, since both the low amount of damage and small death toll are both unexpected because of Mala's intensity. Maybe just replace the period with a comma and change "Timely" to lowercase? I.E.: "In contrast to Mala's intensity, damage was relatively minimal across Myanmar due to adequate early warnings, while timely and effective evacuations minimized loss of life along the coast."
• Other than fatalities and damage, there isn't much other statistics in the lede about Mala's impact. How about you describe what the possible tornado did. Or maybe you could add the number of houses destroyed/damaged? It might not hurt to include a bit of aftermath either.
• "the was able to undergo rapid intensification as wind shear abruptly diminished" - Missing word toward the beginning.
• "On April 26, the local Department of Meteorology and Hydrology stated that the Ayeyarwady, Bago Region, and Yangon regions were likely to be affected within two days and Rakhine State within three days.[17] Officials in Myanmar began broadcasting storm warning to the public over radio the following day." - You should probably state in the first sentence that you are talking about Myanmar. Then remove "in Myanmar" from the second sentence.
• "Overall, the storm claimed 37 lives and left 1.24 billion kyat (US$6.7 million[23]) in damage.[24][25]" - Why is there a reference in the parenthesis? The purpose is to cite that conversion to USD, am I right? Then maybe you should move it to the end of the sentence with references 24 and 25 or put the reference in a note.
• "Cars were reportedly toss into the air" ---> "Cars were reportedly tossed into the air "
• No errors with the references.
• Alright, that should be it for now. Let me know when you are finished.--12george1 (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review George! I've made all the corrections. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Good job on this article. Btw, I removed the minimum barometric pressure from the lede, because that is usually not included there. You can add it back if you want. Anyway, I am now going to pass this article and list it as a Good Article. Congratulations, --12george1 (talk) 03:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)