Talk:Typhoon Sarika

(Redirected from Talk:Typhoon Sarika (2016))
Latest comment: 4 years ago by KN2731 in topic GA Review

Move discussion in progress

edit

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Typhoon Matmo (2014) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Todo

edit
66666 1621  028 0028 1621 0 6               SARIKA              20161122
16101300 002 2 129 1294 1004     000                                    
16101306 002 2 131 1289 1004     000                                    
16101312 002 2 133 1281 1002     000                                    
16101318 002 3 135 1273  998     035     00000 0000 80120 0060          
16101400 002 3 136 1267  994     040     00000 0000 80120 0060          
16101406 002 3 137 1263  990     045     00000 0000 80120 0090          
16101412 002 4 138 1259  980     055     90040 0040 90120 0120          
16101418 002 4 140 1254  980     055     90040 0040 90120 0120          
16101500 002 5 143 1246  970     065     90040 0040 90120 0120          
16101506 002 5 147 1239  955     080     90040 0040 90150 0150          
16101512 002 5 151 1230  950     085     90050 0050 90150 0150          
16101518 002 5 158 1218  935     095     90060 0060 90150 0150          
16101600 002 5 162 1198  965     075     90050 0050 80210 0150          
16101606 002 5 166 1184  965     070     90050 0050 80210 0150          
16101612 002 5 168 1172  970     065     90050 0050 80210 0150          
16101618 002 5 168 1155  970     065     90050 0050 10210 0150          
16101700 002 4 170 1143  970     060     90050 0050 10210 0150          
16101706 002 4 174 1131  970     060     90050 0050 10210 0150          
16101712 002 4 176 1123  970     060     90050 0050 10210 0150          
16101718 002 4 180 1115  970     060     90060 0060 80210 0150          
16101800 002 4 186 1107  970     060     90060 0060 80180 0150          
16101806 002 4 191 1100  975     055     90060 0060 90150 0150          
16101812 002 3 197 1093  985     045     00000 0000 90120 0120          
16101818 002 3 203 1088  990     040     00000 0000 90120 0120          
16101900 002 3 210 1084  994     035     00000 0000 40090 0060          
16101906 002 2 217 1081  996     000                                    
16101912 002 2 220 1080 1000     000                                    
16101918 002 2 224 1080 1004     000                                    

Philippines:

China:

Vietnam

KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good work!

edit

Good work on the article. I just had a question (didn't want to GA review it, but I was curious) - how did the 30 people die in Vietnam? You only mention the cause of three of the deaths. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricanehink: curiously I cannot find anything storm related for Central Vietnam in local news (though that may be because I have to use Google translate to search through Vietnamese news). Chinese news turns up more results but doesn't mention how the other 27 were killed. Looking at the situation it was probably due to flooding, but I haven't found sources that explicitly mention that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@KN2731: Part of the problem with Vietnam is that the damage could be mixed up with a deadly flood event a couple days before Sarika hit. The majority of the 30 deaths might not be from Sarika. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The IFRC report seems to state 34 deaths confirmed before Sarika hit. It's possible no fatalities are related to the typhoon. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Cyclonebiskit: from what I can gather the Chinese sources link Sarika to floods in central Vietnam from around October 17 to 18 whereas others don't - I found this on ReliefWeb by Việt Nam News stating all of the 30 deaths and 30 injuries were separate. Vietnam also doesn't mention Sarika in their report for the ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee 11th IWS, but I'm not sure if this is because Sarika was too recent (there again both China and Philippines cover Sarika, so...). I guess I'll remove the 30 fatalities and impacts of the earlier flooding but I'll leave a footnote saying that they could possibly be linked. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 15:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Will do by tonight hopefully. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Yellow Evan: in case you forgot about this ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "It was the twenty-first named storm and the tenth typhoon of the annual Pacific typhoon season. Sarika developed from a tropical disturbance east of the Philippines on October 13. " Can these two sentences be combined? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Can typhoon be linked in the lead? YE Pacific Hurricane 03:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Right off the bat, the lead should probably be longer. I usually try to include at least some of the following information (and tbf some of that is in here). Listed in order of general importance:
    • Deaths/injuries
    • Monetary damage estimates divided up by category
    • Number of homes damaged/destroyed, leaving number of people homeless
    • Number of crops destroyed (usually in ha)
    • Explaining how people died/got injured, especially if most of the deaths of a cyclone can be traced back to one or two incidents
    • Areas that were according to sources the worst hit with a possible brief explanation of why
    • Disaster declarations
  • "Sarika was first noted by the United States-based Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) as a disorganized tropical disturbance on October 11, while it was about 1,050 km (650 mi) southeast of Manila in the Philippines.[1]" just axe everything after Manila. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's well researched, I'll give you that much. Still, the article is a bit overly detailed and wordy, as well as a bunch of minor but persistent problems. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Yellow Evan: should have gotten everything. Let me know if the lead needs more expansion. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply