Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 20:35, 26 May 2009 [1].

1998 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

edit
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit 22:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've corrented the link, thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit 17:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Im going to refrain from passing judgement at the minute but i have a couple of comments Jason Rees (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cyclone 01B and 03A should probbabbly be split off into their own articles though i understand that 03A is being dealt with by another editor
That doesn't really pertain to the season article, that's more of a topic issue. Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The JTWC issued their its advisory on Tropical Cyclone 02A" - their or its?
Fixed Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does GP not have a little bit more on the Deep depressions and depressions that could be included in the article
What's in the article is all he has. Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of this article is limited to the Indian Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, east of the Horn of Africa and west of the Malay Peninsula. There are two main seas in the North Indian Ocean—the Bay of Bengal to the east of the Indian subcontinent and the Arabian Sea to the west of India. - Can we be a bit more precise with where the IMD issue advisories as an RSMC? (Hint 45E to 100E) and you can link that back to any IMD report.
Done Cyclonebiskit 23:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
    • I'd like a better lede sentence, as the current one is rather vague and useless. Was there anything unique about the season? Is there anything you can write that would get people engaged in the article, other than "was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation"?
    • I notice throughout the article, you refer the cyclones as their JTWC number. While I don't mind seeing the JTWC name as the section title, I am opposed to seeing the numbers used as names, such as "This caused 07B to rapidly weaken".
    • Watch out for split infinitives ("to rapidly weaken") and passive voice ("were issued").
    • I'd like to see more impact for "Depression", 5A, "Second Deep Depression", and 8A. I'm a little unsure on having GP as a source for no known impact for those storms, as GP doesn't actually say there was no known impact.
    • Is there no better section title for any of the non-JTWC ones?
      • What would you suggest? I'm using the official designations since the IMD is basically non-existent in terms of documented reports in 1998. Cyclonebiskit 20:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Come to think of it, I think the titles are largely appropriate, although personally I would change "Depression on eastern coast" to "Depression on eastern India coast", as to specify the location a bit better. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any more recent/better estimates for damage/death totals?
    • An overall copyedit would be nice, since the prose isn't the best. Examples:
      • "Early on May 20, 01B reached its peak intensity with winds of 130 km/h (80 mph) as an eye developed and made landfall several hours later near Chittagong" (too long)
      • "Just as quickly as the storm appeared" (awkward wording)
      • "and weakened as wind shear began to increase. The storm weakened" (redundancy)
      • "Early on June 9, after slightly weakening, 03A reached its peak intensity with winds of 195 km/h (120 mph)" (peak intensity after weakening?)
      • "The depression strengthened to a deep depression later that day with winds peaking at 55 km/h (35 mph) before undergoing a weakening trend" (just poor wording)
      • "strengthened just below Category 1 status" (IMD doesn't use SSHS)
      • "Major crop losses and significant property damage was reported as well as six fatalities in the areas affected by 06B" (poor wording, syntax, confusing structure)
      • "...were downed by strong winds produced by the storm... were damaged by the storm. Waves produced by the storm" (redundancy?)
      • "Waves produced by the storm were recorded up to 5.74 m (18.8 ft) along the coastline of Visakhapatnam" (could be worded better)

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1a and 1c. It badly needs a thorough copyedit—the prose is quite a way from FA quality at this time. Grammar and MoS problems abound. I would also like to see Hink's concerns about research answered. I don't know enough about the subject to tell if the proper research has been done, but there seems to be an over-reliance on "reports" rather than actual journalism about the storms. Some sample issues indicative of the entire text:
    • The first sentence is ungrammatical: "was a deadly and moderately active season in annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation" Is there a "the" missing before annual? I don't understand what you're trying to say; "with seven storms directly affecting land." Noun plus -ing construction and awkward "with" connector need revision.
    • Second sentence, another "with" connector.
    • "The scope of this article is limited to the Indian Ocean in the Northern Hemisphere ..." I don't care for the self-reference; does this really require stating after we've already specified "North" Indian Ocean? If so, I'd rather state it in prose without the self-reference.
    • "With eleven depressions and eight tropical cyclones, the 1998 season ranks as the second most active North Indian Ocean Cyclone season, along with 1987, 1996, and 2005." Another awkward connector, and I'm not following this ranking scheme. Do you mean 1998 is tied with all those other years? If not, where does it fall among them?
    • "During 1998, the IMD did not publish wind speeds, storms were referred to as 'depressions', 'deep depressions', or 'cyclonic storms'." Basic punctuation error. Commas do not mark pauses.
    • Basic MoS problems - ex. "Later that month, a short lived storm"
    • Reading on, the "with" connector and other grammatical problems are prevalent throughout.
--Laser brain (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most grammar MOS probs fixed. 1 or 2 of ur concerns clash with Hink's. Who do v follow? About ur 'with' connector -- Is there any better way of writing repeating lines like this: "06B reached its peak intensity, with winds reaching 155 km/h (100 mph)." I tried an alternative: "Upon being classified a tropical cyclone, 02A reached its peak intensity. The speed of its winds was 65 km/h (40 mph)." Choose any of these or sugest more. Get a way out of the connector or ignore. Next someone eles will yell that sentences could be better with a 'with'. Again who do v follow? Hometech (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your efforts! I'm not sure I followed all of the above, but I did review your edits to the article. Overall, they are not an improvement and actually degraded the level of detail and quality of prose. At least one edit, here, introduced additional errors. I really appreciate your work, but with all due respect, I think you should revert your changes. Some of them were beneficial, but it's too difficult to sort them out from the bad ones because you performed multiple changes in each edit. --Laser brain (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Ok but what's the error I added in the entire edit? Hometech (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 words were missed out. i put 'em. Hometech (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but what about my concern about degrading the level of detail? In several places, you removed clauses containing information for no discernible reason. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restored and rewrote details in lead. here lead is remade as you said. Rest all is just corrections. Hometech (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to research issues from both users Hink and laserbrain, i have alredy put news and books; but both seem to have forgotten the incident since a decade. There's no content from 1999 onwards in newspaper archives and absolutely no casualty updates. Hometech (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already found dozens of sources in a newspaper archive that my university provides. I haven't been able to send the info to him yet, but it's forthcoming, and it should expand some of the remaining sections nicely. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Send info to whom? Hometech (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send the info eventually to Cyclonebiskit, but right now, that content is not in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1998_North_Indian_Ocean_cyclone_season/archive2&oldid=1088824596"