Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Waka/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 00:34, 19 March 2011 [1].

Cyclone Waka[edit]

Cyclone Waka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is the most comprehensive summary of Cyclone Waka available. This storm was one of the most destructive in Tongan history, leveling hundreds of homes and defoliating forests. All thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • "ReliefWeb is a UN site, either run by or related to the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). It might be worth adding this info to the first of the ReliefWeb citations.
Added that bit where it wasn't noted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 3 and 5 ("Gary Padgett"): I have raised questions about this source before. Of concern is the note at the end which says "This summary should be considered a very preliminary overview of the tropical cyclones that occur in each month", which suggests that the information is liable to change. Doesn't that rather disqualify it from being a high quality reliable source?
  • Ref 12 (and others): The Press is a bit cryptic, without a link. Give location.
Locations given where not implied in the source. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21: This is a large site with a detailed index. The citation should indicate where the information is to be found.
Page number given Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24: Meteo France is, I believe, a website. Should this source not have a link?
Meteo France is the French National weather service like NOAA etc - but ive managed to track down a link to it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-print sources should not be italicised (Ref 31, BBC - check for others)
That appeared to be the only one, fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. A liitle spotchecking did not indicate the presnce of problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Gary Padgett, it is no more or less reliable than the warning centers he gets the data from. In that time period, we don't have access to the advisories from all of the warning centers, so he is all we have to work with. The warning centers do have a reanalysis after the fact, in the form of the best track (which is basically as useful as the track map in the article), so it doesn't have the good advisory data that we like. It's not optimal, but using GP is better than nothing. And I'll note as usual that GP has appeared in several NOAA publications, so he is reliable himself. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Gary Padgett clarification Hink and thanks for the source check Brianboulton Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 circular redirect- Severe Tropical Cyclone Waka (probably in a template somewhere). --PresN 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the link, it was in two templates. Thanks for the link check PresN Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with my comments addressed.
    • "a near-equatorial trough of low pressure" - isn't trough of low pressure redundant? A trough already is an area of low pressure
    • You should say Category 4 on what scale. A lot of people on here probably know of the Saffir-Simpson scale, so it should be clarified it isn't that one.
    • "Shortly thereafter, it passed directly over Vava'u" - you should clarify that is part of Tonga, since it's sort of ambiguous (it could just be an overseas territory, some other country, etc)
    • Maybe mention when Faxai developed.
      • I think that what's already in the article is sufficient, there really isn't a need to mention the date since they were separate systems. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, you say the southern disturbance took a lot longer to develop, but Faxai developed only three days before Waka. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's for the tropical depression portion, Faxai had gone through its complete life cycle before Waka was named. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • But you can see my concern. I won't make a big deal about it, just a comment. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What caused the wind shear in the region, and why the JTWC cancel the TCFA's?
    • You mention water temperatures of 30º C toward the end of the first MH paragraph, but I have no idea if that's any warmer or not than when you earlier say "Although warm sea surface temperature in the region favored development"
      • It's the same temperature Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So when you mention the exact temperature, it is redundant to when you first mention "warm sea surface temperature".
    • Where was the system when the JTWC classified it?
    • You mention its motion for the first time in the second paragraph as going to the southwest, but that was ten days after it formed. What was its motion before then?
      • It's mentioned in the first paragraph already, "Moving southeastward, the system gradually became more organized." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the storm path based on the JTWC? If so, you should say so.
      • It's primarily from the JTWC but I see no need to make this clarification. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe it's just my screen, but I see two lines in almost the exact same place that says "was upgraded to a (severe) tropical cyclone". Is there a way you can tweak the writing so it isn't so redundant?
      • Doesn't show on my screen (even before today's edits). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, more importantly there is such similar phrasing so close to each other. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Where are you referring to? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Upon doing so, it was upgraded to a tropical cyclone and given the name Waka. Shortly thereafter, the storm underwent rapid intensification;[2] roughly 24 hours after being named, Waka was upgraded to a severe tropical cyclone, attaining sustained winds of 120 km/h (75 mph)." - it's similar wording so close for such similar upgrades. Can't you think of alternate wording to "was upgraded to a tropical cyclone" in one of those instances? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Reworded the second one to just "Waka attained sustained winds of..." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did it turn to the southeast and accelerate?
    • "was sheared away" - rather than saying that and using passive voice, can't you actually mention wind shear?
      • Reworded to "As a result, wind shear displaced convection from the centre..." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Tracking southeastward, the remnant cyclone briefly slowed over open waters before again accelerating to the southeast" - is "southeast" really needed twice in the same sentence?
      • Just making sure readers know where it was moving ;) Removed the redundancy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A location would be good where it was last noted. For example, how far SE of New Zealand, or N of Antarctica?
      • It really wasn't close to any major landmass, about 2,200 km north-northeast of Antarctica but it's there now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I figured, but I think it's cool to mention how close to Antarctica it was. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Numerous roads were blocked by fallen trees, power and water supplies were also interrupted to most residents." - is that supposed to be a semicolon, or were you trying something else there?
    • The writing in the impact section isn't the best (the writing is longer than it needs to be in places, lots of passive voice), but this sentence stood out as needing rewriting - "Severe damage also took place on Niuatoputapu where coastal homes were impacted by Waka's storm surge and several structures lost their roofs."
      • Thanks for making the copyedit, is there anything left to fix for this comment? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "470 homes and six schools" - I think "six" should be written as 6 in this instance, since the numbers are so close to each other and there should be synergy
    • "In terms of monetary losses, damage from Cyclone Waka amounted to 104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD)[22][23]" - first, there is no period at the end, second is the damage from 2002 USD or 2011 USD, and third, it could be written so much simpler. "Damage throughout Tonga amounted to 104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD)."
      • I had a reason for that wording at the time but I forgot what it was... Reworded it anyways. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You should still specify what year it's in, since the cyclone was in two years. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's stated in the infobox, I don't see the need to add it again. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A'a Island sustained the highest decrease in plants bearing food at 100%" - so that means all of the food-bearing plants were killed? Why not just say that instead of 100%?
    • Link for "Hihifo"? (btw, Hihifo links to a place in Tonga - are you sure that reference is for somewhere outside of Tonga?)
      • There's also a Hihifo, Wallis which doesn't have an article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh, I see now. There's a link for Hihifo Airport on Wallis, just to let you know. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was thinking of adding that as the link but I wasn't sure. It's linked to there now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)`[reply]
    • "Every lifeguard in Whangamata was called in to assist in keeping and estimated 8,000 people out of the water. Former lifeguards were also called in to aid in this" - two things. First, couldn't the two sentences be merged? "Every lifeguard in Whangamata, as well as former lifeguards, were..." And second - do you mean "in keeping an estimated..."?
      • They were estimating how many people they kept out :P fixed and reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This aircraft was sent based on the FRANZ Agreement enacted in 1992." - poor wording. "This aircraft was sent in accordance with the FRANZ Agreement, enacted in 1992" I would recommend.
    • "Due to the substantial damage to agriculture, food shortages were expected to impact the region in the near future" - rather than "near future", couldn't you indicate some other time-relevant term for the immediate time period after the cyclone's strike?
      • The source was written at the time so there's no definitive period. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • But surely something like "in the weeks/months/years/decades/centuries/millennia following the cyclone" would be more encyclopediac. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Found a time frame, it was months (impact was felt by April). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You start with US$ in the aftermath section, and you switch to just $ later on. Is it all USD, or does it change to some other currency?

That's it for now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've addressed all but one comment. The remaining one is about the quality of the Preps/Impact section. For some reason I can't get a grasp on passive voice and how to avoid/correct it. Would you be able to point out where corrections need to be made in the section? Thanks for the review as well Hink! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "104.2 million paʻanga ($51.3 million USD) was wrought in damage." - This is kind of awkward wording.
  • "Hundreds of structures [...] were destroyed. Winds [...] destroying hundreds of structures" - "Hundreds of structures" is a vague term, which isn't inherently problematic, but it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. Perhaps something generic along the lines of "The storm destroyed hundreds of structures along its path"?
    • Removed the second usage of that (I assumed it was the lead) and added defoliation Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During December 30, the centre of the storm" - See the linguistic contradiction?
  • "The JTWC assessed the storm to have attained similar one-minute sustained winds upon peaking." - It would be helpful to note that the reason for identical 10- and 1-minute sustained winds is an agency-to-agency discrepancy rather than a meteorological anomaly.
  • "little infrastructural losses" - Self-explanatory.
  • "much of the island was sandblasted" - Since I'm sure "sandblasted" is being used in a figurative sense, it would be good to clarify what it actually means.
  • "Numerous homes were destroyed and those that were left standing lost their roofs. According to the Red Cross, about 200 homes in the city were severely damaged or destroyed." - I feel like these sentences basically say the same thing.

Otherwise it looks good. Juliancolton (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Source link for Waka 2001 track.png seems to be dead. Also, should provide licensing information for background image (NASA) for both this and the close-up image of same
  • Cyclone_Waka_passing_over_Tonga.jpg - how was it modified? Might want to note change(s)
    • I'm quite sure the change to that image is blatant enough to not be noted... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise images seem fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Nikkimaria! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Meteorological history: "however, this was due to discrepancies between the two center." Should the last word be plural?
  • Tonga: "of" appears missing from "Vava'u lost roughly 90% its crops".
  • You don't need to have multiple Nuku'alofa links in a section like are present here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed up, thanks for the comments Giants2008 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2011 (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/Cyclone_Waka/archive1&oldid=1089085269"