Talk:November 2016 Vietnam tropical depression

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:November 2016 Vietnam tropical depression/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 22:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);

(c) it contains no original research; and

(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Fail
(b) (MoS)	The reviewer has no notes here.	Fail

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	See discussion.	WTF!?
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	See discussion.	Fail
(c) (original research)	See discussion.	Fail
(d) (copyvio and plagiarism)	4.8% confidence	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	See discussion.	Fail
(b) (focused)	See discussion.	Fail

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Article is neutral	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No edit wars	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	No copyrighted images	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Track map with the usual	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
On hold	Quite a bunch to fix, might have some more comments coming.

Discussion

Criteria 1

• "The November 2016 Vietnam tropical depression was a tropical depression that caused heavy flooding throughout central and southern Vietnam in early November 2016." I think we know the TD happened in November 2016. Get rid of the second mention of the date and the tropical depression.
• "With favorable environments and an increase of organization" What is "favorable environments"? Do you mean "favorable conditions"?
  • Speaking of which...
• "The system continued moving westward over land and fully dissipated on November 6." Did it dissipate, or did JMA stop tracking it?
• "Some say that Vietnam had its worst flooding since 2011." that needs to be proved by the article behind the paywall.
• "By November 4, the JTWC started to track the disturbance, giving it a "low" chance of strengthening further, as it was located about 343 km (213 mi) east of Ho Chi Minh City." JTWC used nautical miles, use that instead of miles for the conversion.
• "The reason behind this was the system had a rapidly consolidating low-level circulation center" This could be merged with the previous sentence.
• "in the same time" At the same time.
• What is two hours after "Later that day"?
• "still stating a rapidly consolidating system over in warm waters of 29°C (84.2°F)." I think "As the rapidly consolidating system was over the warm waters of 29C".
• "Though during the next day, the JTWC cancelled their alert due to the fact that the system was weakening and nearing land with increasing wind shear." Replace "due to the fact that" with "as".
• "Reported" should not be used so often in an article. Such as, "About 27,000 homes were reported flooded within the region." Did it flood or not?
• "Though, the death total from the flooding since mid October combined have been topped and totaled to 50." Probably better as "A total of 50 people passed away from both the depression and prior flooding in mid-October."

Criteria 2

• Use proper citations. References 1 and 5 are unacceptable.
• Add accessdates, archivedates, and publishers to your references.
• Reference 2 is behind a paywall. What was said in that article? Also, add {{Subscription required}}.
• What was said in References 1 and 5? How reliable are those sources?
• Third external link is dead.
• You said that the TD "formed as an area of low-pressure off the coast of the region of Sabah, Malaysia." The reference you cited did not say that. A bit of synthesis there.
• What part of Reference 8 did it say that the JMA stopped tracking it?

Criteria 3

• Shown on the infobox, there was impact in Borneo and Cambodia. How come there's no details of the impact in those areas?

Criteria 1 feedback from Jasper Deng

• "Due to its proximity to land and a very exposed center, both agencies canceled their warnings as it made landfall over in Southern Vietnam." - this is not correct. The correct statement is "Due to its proximity to land, the depression failed attain tropical storm status." or something along those lines.
• "Just before November 5, the JTWC issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert (TCFA) as a rapidly consolidating system was over in warmer waters with temperatures of approximately 29°C (84.2°F)." @Typhoon2013: Please stop using the phrase "over in". There is very rarely a good reason to use two prepositions in a row, and here, is not even correct. Also, "a rapidly consolidating system" is too vague. I suggest "At 18:00 UTC on November 4, the JTWC, observing a rapidly-consolidating center and warm waters with temperatures near 29°C (84.2°F), issued a Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert.", or just outright removing this sentence, since you should be telling the story of the storm, not the agencies (look at what I wrote at 2016 Pacific typhoon season#Typhoon Nock-ten (Nina)).
• "The flooding had occurred as early as October when the remnants of Tropical Storm Aere and Typhoon Sarika affected most of Vietnam." Please don't use the past perfect so much. In other words, "had occurred" is not accurate to use here. I suggest "Vietnam already had experienced flooding from the remnants of Tropical Storm Aere and Typhoon Sarika since 2016, and the depression exacerbated the disaster." or something similar - consider splitting this into two sentences.

In general, I strongly recommend that Typhoon2013 ask other editors how to phrase things instead of guessing (such as User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive5#Please don't insert redundant information User talk:Typhoon2013/Archive4#Your grammar). This would go a long way towards bringing this and other articles up to standard.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Note

After I heard offsite there were problems in this GAN, I decided to take a look into copyediting it. It did not take as long as I thought it would, and there were parts of the article that were decent, however, other parts were not, and I had to re-word it. Prime example is right here: "200 houses were destroyed at that time, bringing in the total of 40,000 homes destroyed in 12 provinces. 12,000 hectares of crop were damages too while more than 40,000 cattle and poultry were dead and washed away". There are several problems with these two sentences. First you note 200 houses were destroyed, then 40,000. Which one is it? (I looked at the source and it said 40,000 were inundated, which in case you don't know, means flooded. In the second sentence, "were damages" is a very weak phrase and "too"is not an encyclopedic word. Also the case with "were dead" (very weak and turns out to be redundant) and "washed away" (also weak). Oh, shouldn't there be more impact out there? Maybe try Relief Web and search "Vietnam flood November 2016"? One last thing, I also added a few Template:who tags to the lead. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 07:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Note (pt. 2)

Since no significant work has been done to the article, the Good Article Nomination has failed. You can re-nominate this article, but please consider asking other WPTC users (IRC), Guild of Copy Editors, and peer review.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The way forward

Hi @Jasper Deng, Yellow Evan, CycloneIsaac, Typhoon2013, Final-Fantasy-HH, and Hurricanehink:, I wanted to respond to here personally with several thoughts on the way forward with this article. I would strongly urge CycloneIssac to quick fail this article as I have been seriously tempted to over the last months for reasons that are outlined above and below. Last month I had a complaint on my talk page from @Final-Fantasy-HH: who strongly felt that the Tropical Depression that impacted Vietnam during December was far more notable than this one. As a result of this and a little bit of digging, I suggested a comprimise of a Vietnam flooding article, which would cover in more detail the flooding events that have taken place since I believe May 2016. However, for various reasons this hasnt happened yet but is somethign id like to see happen.Jason Rees (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I am also surprised that the JMA WWJP25 is not a reliable source CycloneIsaac.Jason Rees (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: I was looking visually at the reference list, and now it has shifted to Reference 7.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the talk page complaint. Assuming the TD didn't cause most of the flooding, I think its a fair move. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The UN coordinator includes the depression as part of a series of five floods affecting Vietnam in late 2016. I think it should be part of a broader flood article, given 134 deaths from mid-October to December. The Weather Channel notes that it began even before Typhoon Sarika (2016) struck. Unlike Sarika, which also affected other countries and had a significant intensity, this TD is really just part of a bigger story. I propose a merger with 2016 Vietnam floods. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes me and @Jason Rees: were discussing this several weeks back. I actually agree more with @Hurricanehink: to be merged and call it "2016 Vietnam flooding". Despite I made this article during November last year, I did not expect another TD to affect Vietnam "much greater" during December. So yeah, unless we make two separate articles? Though I don't think it should work like that. Sorry guys. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Sometimes the notability is established in hindsight, especially if a storm is part of a larger event like this TD. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)