Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Gay (1989)/archive1

< 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 promoted by GrahamColm 05:38, 20 June 2012 [1].

Typhoon Gay (1989)

edit

Typhoon Gay (1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Gay was one of the worst tropical cyclones to strike Thailand on record. Its unusual origin an unprecedented intensification within the Gulf of Thailand caught hundreds of vessels off-guard, leading to tragic loss of life. Its unprecedented intensity in the region led to immense damage onshore as well, with tens of thousands of buildings damaged or destroyed and nearly 600 lives lost. The storm's trail of damage continued into India where a further 69 people were killed. All told, the typhoon was responsible for nearly 1,000 fatalities and ranks as one of the worst natural disasters in Thailand's history.

Over the past several months, I've rebuilt this article from the meager piece it was into what I believe is the most complete account of the storm available. Relative scarcity of information made writing this a bit of a challenge and for the scale of damage caused by this storm, the article's size may seem a bit short. I've read through every journal mentioning the storm I could find and I fully believe there is nothing left to add. With that, it's time for this to enter the spotlight. I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expect a review of the article soon. hf24 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Lede
Shouldn't "Kavali Cyclone of 1989" be bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE?
It's not an official name for the storm, it's just a common name for it in India. Cyclonebiskit (talk)
"800 fatalities" needs an &nbsp;
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)
Same with "November 1989"
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)
"more than"? What does track file say? If it says 120, then do 120, not "more than"...?
It's another way of saying that it attained typhoon status to avoid using "typhoon" too many times. It also works well with the track since it attained 120 km/h winds early on Nov. 3 and continued to intensify throughout the day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"first typhoon since 1891" – linky?
Reference #8 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"after temporarily weakening over land and gradually reorganized" doesn't flow too well
Removed "after temporarily weakening over land" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"by surprise" seems a bit informal. I don't have a problem with it, but the tone seems a bit too casual.
I'd prefer to leave it as is for now unless another editor has similar concerns. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"275 offshore fatalities" needs an &nbsp;
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"amid" seems a bit like "during"..."under" or something might be a better word IMO
During and under don't work as well in this context. Would amidst work better? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can a ship be "under" swells? "Amid" is the perfect choice of words here (btw, "amidst" = "amid", just a much more archaic BrE version of it) Auree ★★ 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"588 people" needs an &nbsp;
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"1989 United States dollars" ^
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Striking India as a powerful cyclone" isn't too relevant at this point; it was mentioned earlier in the lede and readers should understand that...
It notifies the reader that the focus is shifting from effects in Thailand to effects in India. It's just there for transitory purposes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"20,000 homes" – nbsp...
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"100,000 people" ^
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hf24 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hf24, for future reference, instead of cluttering the FAC page by listing every single instance where &nbsp; are required, could you leave a more general and much more helpful comment like "add &nbsp; for numbers throughout"? Auree ★★ 01:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose at top

  • Mmmm, who's doing this writing? I can barely fault the lead. I've just made a few trivial edits based on personal pref. Please revert if you don't like. Since you're using US spelling, you might consider the US dash for Category 5–equivalent, which avoids the need for double hyphenation. Range dashes are more readable when there are conversions to range as well, I think (done). The weird symbols won't be internationally recognised (remember the topic is both India- and Thailand-related, and the readers are everywhere); it's up to you, but my pref would be to put them in parentheses and make the US$ the main currency. My, there are an awful lot of nbsp syntaxes in the edit box. I don't mind, but it is daunting for newbies. Let's hope we can organise an easy shortcut for this, soon. Nice work, but I haven't looked further. Tony (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose in top sections—if this is a contender for the Cup, I wonder why closer audits of the prose haven't been done.

  • Integrated theme and paragraphing. The storm is awkwardly personified: "Despite the narrowness of the gulf, the storm was able to take advantage of warm waters and good outflow, owing to its small size."—please consider "the storm took advantage of". But I still feel it's awkward every with this change. Unsure ... "gulf, the small size of the storm [something or other] ...". I don't have the technical knowledge of the field to fix this, but something tells me this should be more clearly a lead-in to the subsequent statements (is it the ultimate causal factor in what then happened, this small size combined with the warm waters and good outflow?). Then the fact that the strengthening was faster (and perhaps stronger? ... unsaid) than anticipated is separated by a paragraph break. Isn't this part of the same integrated idea? I don't mind if the next para starts with "Gay attained typhoon status early on November 3", or even "Later on November 3, ...". The access to warm waters is an interesting issue that reappears at the end of the section ... I'm starting to get it, but in reverse.
  • Repetitions et al.. "the typhoon attained winds of 185 km/h (115 mph)"—second "attained" in five seconds; here it's less suitable, don't you think? And in another five seconds there's a third "attained", again of wind. (I sense here, too, there's a slight feel in the writing process of personifying a storm; perhaps this should be reserved for the human managers and victims.)
  • "... Gay resumed strengthening as the ridge to its north intensified and ..."—the "resumed strengthening" is a little clunky. Could it be just "strengthened", given the strong temporal context in the adjacent clauses? There's another "strengthening" in the next sentence, too. Do watch the repetitions. Then there's another "attained" (its peak intensity), but here entirely appropriate (it wouldn't pall if one or two previous usages of the word, and the immediately following one, were changed).
  • "Winds fluctuated violently and changed direction, preventing the ship from remaining stabilized despite being within safe operating limits."—I guess the limits are to tonnage? Sorry to be dumb.
  • "with gale-force winds located within 95 km (60 mi) of the center."—you could remove "located".
  • "Two days after the sinking, four rescue ships and two helicopters in the region were searching for survivors;[13] four people were rescued from the vessel by November 6."—Three issues: (1) by November 6 ... not on? I guess the sources allow no greater precision ... (2) This is the first date in the section; was Nov. 6 two days after the sinking? (3) Were the four people rescued from the vessel underwater? (4) Are these four included in the six crew who survived? I'm confused.
  • "collectively" could be removed. Tony (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments; I've tried to deal with all of these, except for the tonnage limit and the vessel part (I'll leave those to Cyclonebiskit). Auree ★★ 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Auree, it's much appreciated. As for the tonnage, the article didn't specify what it meant by "safe operating limits," so we can only guess that it was tonnage. I'll get to the second comment about the sinking later when I have more time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was no information from what I read on where the four people were rescued (if they were in the ship or floating in the sea around it). The four survivors mentioned are part of the six overall that survived the sinking. I'm not sure where that becomes vague so could you clarify what causes the confusion? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very accessible, well written article--great work guys. A few minor comments that don't affect my support:
  • "classifying Gay as a modern-day Super Cyclonic Storm" Why is "modern-day" included here?
  • "before passing over the Seacrest, an oil drilling ship." Should "oil drilling" be hyphenated here?
  • Some repeated wikilinks: Andhra Pradesh, Thailand, Gulf of Thailand, Andaman Islands, and Kavali.
  • Some overlinking, India, Thailand, and the United States probably shouldn't be linked.
  • "Throughout Andhra Pradesh, 69 fatalities and 410 million Rupees ($25.27 million USD) worth of damage was attributed to Typhoon Gay." Is "was" correct here, or should it be "were"? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (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/Typhoon_Gay_(1989)/archive1&oldid=1138474399"