Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

Should be a start class article. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I notice you think a lot of articles should be upped from stub to start. Given the big change, you should probably bring it up on the assessments page of what needs to be done for a WPAC typhoon season page to be start class. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No way is this a start. One very basic fact of the season is the storms themselves - a brief description of them should be mandatory for a start. For example, tell me about Virgil. Was it a typhoon or a tropical storm? Where was it? When was it? Did it do anything? If the article can answer those questions it is a start.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Assessment, part 2

This is still not a start-class article. Season articles need info on all the storms in order to be start. -- Core des at talk! 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:STUB says that stub articles are short incomplete articles (ie, Kamikaze (typhoon), Typhoon Paka, 1-2-3 rule, etc), and 17-20 paragrphs is not considered short. Storm05 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
That's just a recommendation. We have different rules at our Wikiproject. Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I dont know, because techally (pardon the spelling) the rules of Wikipedia trumps all over rules of Wikiprojects, etc. Storm05 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It's not absolutely necessary to follow the guideline. Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Ummm, how about waiting for me to finish? I'm going slowly (because of distractions elsewhere)-- Nilfanion ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) And I put it at stub class again. It doesn't have every storm yet. Once it does, it will probably be B class with a possible FAC run and skip start, but given that it's missing four storms, it does not meet our criteria for start class. Yes, this isn't a stub article based on Wikipedia's standards, but it is only a guideline. For here, our standards are what counts. Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Are tropical depressions supposed to go here? What about ones just monitored by PAGASA? And where do you find names (correctly matched) to the official ones? I was looking for those for 1981-84, but to no success. Good kitty 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Why do the infoboxes use JTWC winds with JMA pressures? In many cases it's ridiculous - Tanya (50kt/1000 hPa from JMA), a JTWC Cat 1, with only 1000 hPa min pres? I say in the infobox either use JTWC evenly or JMA evenly, but not both. – Chacor 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

JTWC didn't carry the pressures (at least not in BT or ATCR); you know a source? I'm not 100% sure they strictly follow the relationship in Dvorak. I decided using JMA pressures was preferable to "unknown" pressure for them all.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
That looks right, there's no pressure given for 1999 in the PDF files either. Seems weird that they dropped pressures from the ATCR. Bloody JTWC. I suppose the other alternative would work too, using RSMC Tokyo information in the infobox instead. – Chacor 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bloody JTWC sounds about right ;) Actually I'm not sure JTWC ever stated pressures for these stormsl comparing the data at the NRL: Compare Bart and Rusa. I'm leery about changing to RSMC data for the infobox, the prose uses the JTWC in accordance with what we previously agreed to do (2000 and on JMA, earlier JTWC). There are three alternatives really: abandon the JTWC entirely, work out if we can safely apply the numbers in Dvorak technique and then use those or when the small infobox is redone make pressure an optional parameter (so if there is no pressure info we can drop it). When I get home tonight (gotta go class now), I'll plug all the WPac ATCF data I can find into a spreadsheet and see if the pressure/wind relationship is strictly applied. If it is I think we can extrapolate it back without OR concerns.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The 1994 ATCR does have pressure listed, so they must've dropped it between 1994 and 1999. – Chacor 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Sigh... This is the JTWC's fault. The data is in the ATCR see table 1-1 on this page. This is them being complete idiots though, surely the MSLP is a fact that should be in the individual storms reports.... I'll fix the article in a min.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
We can always change the way it is done. We really should use JMA information since they became an RSMC. I remember someone stating (on one of these pages) that is since 1989. We can use JTWC for years prior to the inception of the JMA as RSMC. Thegreatdr 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The tables are true for most of them. I found them in the NIO ones. Good kitty 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 9

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 10

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 11

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 12

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 13

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I guess I'll review it, since it's been up for a while.

  • For starters, the lede should be rewritten. What is there is what the template used to be, but it's not that helpful. It doesn't describe the season at all. The lede should summarize the whole article, so when I look at it, I expect seeing info on various storms and some stats.
  • Another general rule of thumbs is that the default info for storms should be using the Japan Meteorological Agency. Meaning, you'll have to use the data here, and make sure that you clarify what is in 10-min winds and what is in 1-min winds. If you have difficulty with this, ask me and I can help. Check 2002 Pacific typhoon season for reference. You could even make it simple by saying all wind speeds are in 10-min sustained (once you get the JMA intensities in, that is).
    • I have done my best to convert the default info. Unfortunately, some of the season's storms are not in the JMA best track. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Can you indicate which ones didn't? And say what you did? Like, when it said "a tropical depression formed", is that per JMA? Or JTWC? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • ."for a developing broad circulation which stretched out" - which --> that
  • You mention "the Borneo coast" twice in consecutive sentences. Try some variety.
  • For Iris, you say when there is a TCFA, but not when a TD formed.
  • You don't have to say things like "Tropical Storm Iris had no effects on land". You similarly don't mention that Iris had no psychological impact on monkeys in Africa :P
  • Where was the rainfall from Jacob?
  • "Kate brought torrential rain to the north-east of Japan" - so not over Japan, or what?
    • The citation did not mention anything about Kate bringing rain to Japan. I assume the writer meant the east-central Philippines, as that is what is proven in the reference. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "The peak winds recorded on Iwo Jima were 95 km/h (60 mph), with gusts of up to 126 km/h (78 mph)." - this is unsourced
  • "Leo made landfall on May 2 as a tropical depression, after the convection had become separated from the circulation of the storm and soon dissipated overland." - bit of a run-on
  • Were there any effects by Leo in mainland China?
    • I could not find anything on Leo's impact outside of Hong Kong. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 12:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "killed at two with another 5 people" - numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Make sure this is the case for the whole article.
  • You should indicate in prose that JMA classified "Unnamed Tropical Storm (07W)" as a TS.
    • Done. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • My issue here is that you still only cite JTWC, which can't be the case since you're also including JMA data. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Optional, but you might want to put the TD's into an "Other storms" section.
    • Done. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. Would it work, in your opinion, to get rid of the infoboxes? I hate to keep reminding it, but check out 2002 Pacific typhoon season, how all of the TD's are in one section, written in prose without an infobox, with the exception of when the depressions caused notable damage. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "south of Okinawa. The depression passed near to the Japanese island" - this is weird, since there is no indication Okinawa belongs to Japan
  • "A tropical disturbance began to develop in the South China Sea on July 23 within the same monsoon trough that Tropical Storm Neil would develop from to the east" - a bit long. Try rewriting shorter.
  • Watch for overlinking. That should be simple.
  • Link for "T'aean Peninsula"?
    • There is no Wikipedia article for the "T'aean Peninsula". I do not want to put in a red link. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • But did you check for another article that could be linked to? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "400 square kilometres (150 sq mi)" - both units should be abbreviated.
  • "The Red Cross reported a further 42 deaths and 40,000 were made homeless from flooding in North Korea and that the flooding worsened the ongoing food shortages in the country" - bit long, try rewriting a bit.
  • "Early in August, a low-level circulation center within a monsoon gyre to the southwest of Guam." - verb?
  • "and began to merge with the gyre from which it had formed. As it merged with the gyre" - a bit redundant
  • "The depression moved to the west brushing the south coast of Kyūshū on August 6 before dissipating in the Yellow Sea." - something missing here? Maybe a comma or something
  • Any more impact from Paul?
  • "moved to the north under the influence of a subtropical ridge over northern Japan" - usually ridges don't cause storms to move to the north. Is this right?
  • "The storm dissipated on August 18 but its remnants were recognisable for a further two days" - what does the dissipation mean here?
  • "As the cyclone continued to intensify becoming Tropical Storm Sam on August 19, the subtropical ridge to the north shifted its track in a westwards direction towards Luzon. " - bit long/unorganized
  • "Typhoon Sam was responsible for 7 deaths in the Philippines[35] and flooding from its rainfall displaced over 4000 people and landslides closed many major roads near Baguio City" - run-on
  • "; exceeding the previous record set in 1926" - if you have a semicolon, it needs to be able to function as an independent sentence; in this case, it doesn't.
  • " total damage in Hong Kong totalled " - department of redundancy department?
    • I am not exactly receiving your point here. I reowrded the sentence. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • You have "total... totaled" - it's redundant saying both :P --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "The final advisory from the Central Pacific Hurricane Center, while Dora was still in the eastern Pacific as a minimal hurricane." - incomplete sentence
    • Corrected. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. Here is another instance that shows bias toward JTWC when it shouldn't - " the JTWC assumed responsibility for the storm". Technically, the JMA assumed responsibility, since they're the official warning center. You could say JTWC, but you need to say JMA here. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "On August 21, a small tropical cyclone developed " - why does infobox say a day earlier?
    • The reference claimed the depression formed on August 21, so I fixed that issue. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What is a "shear line"?
  • "The JMA monitored Typhoon Virgil and made it a minimal severe tropical storm at its peak." - source?

That's it through Wendy. Lemme know when you finish that so I can continue. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  • "The JTWC issued a TCFA... and it developed into..." implies that the JTWC developed. Watch for wording :P
  • "The depression did not intensify as it moved to the northwest brushing the northeast tip of Luzon on September 2." - add comma
  • ." It maintained this intensity until it made landfall in China 220 km (140 mi) east-northeast of Hong Kong the next day. " - there is no indication here what "the next day" means, since there is no date in this or the previous sentence.
  • "fuelled" --> "fueled"
  • "with Wenzhou being particularly badly hit" - could probably be written better.
  • "$275 million" - you should mention somewhere how you deal with damage totals.
  • "18 people were killed in landslides in northern Luzon" - you should avoid starting sentences with a number
  • What are "direct economic losses"?
  • You should try and get a damage total for Hong Kong for York. As of now, it sounds like $10 million, and then compared to the rest of China having $24 million, it makes me wonder why there is so much attention on HK and less for rest of China.
    • Clarified. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Ehh, not so sure it is. It'd be nice having the Hong Kong dollar converted to USD, and it's still unclear whether the economic losses from York is the same or different from the $10 million USD. I think that'd help clarify everything. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "about 165 km (103 mi)" - watch out for rounding
    • According to the convert template, that is the correct conversion. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • You shouldn't be using the convert template though :P 103 isn't a rounded number. You should just write it out so both are divisible by 5. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What were the origins of Ann? Trough? (don't guess though)
  • "Bart intensified further as it turned to the northeast under the influence of upper-level winds." - usually upper-level winds don't help intensification, so how
  • What does " and further $5 million of damage to the Japanese economy" mean?
  • "It developed into the 25th depression of the season" - according to JTWC or JMA? If JMA, remember that they don't include TD's in the best track.
  • " The depression gradually intensified becoming Tropical Storm Cam on September 24 and reaching its peak with 75 km/h (45 mph) later that day, as its motion gradually turned towards the north." - bit long. Could use some more commas and some splitting up.
    • Split up into three sentences and added in a couple of commas. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "As Tropical Storm Cam approached Hong Kong, the HKO hoisted the No. 8 Signal for the fifth time in the year, the last time this had occurred was in 1964." - I'm not sure, but I think this could use a semicolon after year.
  • "There was some disruption to flights into the territory, with 100 flights cancelled or delayed" - no need to mention "flights" twice
  • "and Dan set these back efforts back." - not sure what you're going for
  • How can a storm "damage a large number of trees"? I can see if it knocked them down, but damaged?
  • Saying where "Agrihan" is would help TD 28's section. Also, what is " tail-end of shearline"
    • A.) Done. B.) I wikilinked "Shear line" before, and I reworded the sentence. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The track of Frankie suggests there is probably more impact.
  • "A suspect area of low pressure" - suspect?
  • " A subtropical ridge to the north of the system determined the motion of the storm as it moved southwest" - could be simpler
  • Again, all of the TD's could be put into a singular "Other storms" section. See any of the recent Pacific typhoon articles.
  • In general, with regards to my first comment, you shouldn't mention TD 07W or whatever for the TD stage, since that gives too much credence to the JTWC, even though JMA is the official warning center. And again, make sure throughout the article that you clarify whether winds are in 1-min or 10-min. They should be 10-min if they're from the JMA.
    • As above, I will clarify the information later on once the lede is rewritten. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I have fixed the comment regarding TD 07W. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That's it for my first look through the article. Mostly minor things, but a few big things that need to be done (notably what's immediately above). Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply

To clarify, and what could be the biggest thing that needs to be done, the article needs to be converted from JTWC to JMA, meaning all of the winds in the article should have JMA as a default (and possibly add it as a note that they're from there, and they're in 10 minute winds, see 2002 Pacific typhoon season). I could help with the process, but I'm afraid I'd have to stop my review if so. You're welcome to withdraw, and I'd help you in the conversion, since you did a good job with the prose. Just throwing it out there. And it shouldn't take as long next time to get it reviewed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Looking much better already. Just some more JMA converting needed, and I added a few other replies above. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Do you have any questions about the outstanding issues? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Are you still working on the article? It's quite close, but if work isn't continued, then I'll have to fail the GAN. It's been up for a month now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC) reply

How much more time is left before the GAN gets failed? I will need to find some time to work on it in the coming days. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, it has been up for a month. How long til you think you can finish it? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1999 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:1999_Pacific_typhoon_season&oldid=1196331263"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

Should be a start class article. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I notice you think a lot of articles should be upped from stub to start. Given the big change, you should probably bring it up on the assessments page of what needs to be done for a WPAC typhoon season page to be start class. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
No way is this a start. One very basic fact of the season is the storms themselves - a brief description of them should be mandatory for a start. For example, tell me about Virgil. Was it a typhoon or a tropical storm? Where was it? When was it? Did it do anything? If the article can answer those questions it is a start.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 20:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Assessment, part 2

This is still not a start-class article. Season articles need info on all the storms in order to be start. -- Core des at talk! 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC) reply

WP:STUB says that stub articles are short incomplete articles (ie, Kamikaze (typhoon), Typhoon Paka, 1-2-3 rule, etc), and 17-20 paragrphs is not considered short. Storm05 12:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
That's just a recommendation. We have different rules at our Wikiproject. Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
I dont know, because techally (pardon the spelling) the rules of Wikipedia trumps all over rules of Wikiprojects, etc. Storm05 15:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply
"However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." It's not absolutely necessary to follow the guideline. Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Ummm, how about waiting for me to finish? I'm going slowly (because of distractions elsewhere)-- Nilfanion ( talk) 00:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) And I put it at stub class again. It doesn't have every storm yet. Once it does, it will probably be B class with a possible FAC run and skip start, but given that it's missing four storms, it does not meet our criteria for start class. Yes, this isn't a stub article based on Wikipedia's standards, but it is only a guideline. For here, our standards are what counts. Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC) reply

Are tropical depressions supposed to go here? What about ones just monitored by PAGASA? And where do you find names (correctly matched) to the official ones? I was looking for those for 1981-84, but to no success. Good kitty 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC) reply

Why do the infoboxes use JTWC winds with JMA pressures? In many cases it's ridiculous - Tanya (50kt/1000 hPa from JMA), a JTWC Cat 1, with only 1000 hPa min pres? I say in the infobox either use JTWC evenly or JMA evenly, but not both. – Chacor 07:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply

JTWC didn't carry the pressures (at least not in BT or ATCR); you know a source? I'm not 100% sure they strictly follow the relationship in Dvorak. I decided using JMA pressures was preferable to "unknown" pressure for them all.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 09:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
That looks right, there's no pressure given for 1999 in the PDF files either. Seems weird that they dropped pressures from the ATCR. Bloody JTWC. I suppose the other alternative would work too, using RSMC Tokyo information in the infobox instead. – Chacor 09:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Bloody JTWC sounds about right ;) Actually I'm not sure JTWC ever stated pressures for these stormsl comparing the data at the NRL: Compare Bart and Rusa. I'm leery about changing to RSMC data for the infobox, the prose uses the JTWC in accordance with what we previously agreed to do (2000 and on JMA, earlier JTWC). There are three alternatives really: abandon the JTWC entirely, work out if we can safely apply the numbers in Dvorak technique and then use those or when the small infobox is redone make pressure an optional parameter (so if there is no pressure info we can drop it). When I get home tonight (gotta go class now), I'll plug all the WPac ATCF data I can find into a spreadsheet and see if the pressure/wind relationship is strictly applied. If it is I think we can extrapolate it back without OR concerns.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 10:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The 1994 ATCR does have pressure listed, so they must've dropped it between 1994 and 1999. – Chacor 10:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
Sigh... This is the JTWC's fault. The data is in the ATCR see table 1-1 on this page. This is them being complete idiots though, surely the MSLP is a fact that should be in the individual storms reports.... I'll fix the article in a min.-- Nilf anion ( talk) 16:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
We can always change the way it is done. We really should use JMA information since they became an RSMC. I remember someone stating (on one of these pages) that is since 1989. We can use JTWC for years prior to the inception of the JMA as RSMC. Thegreatdr 20:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) reply
The tables are true for most of them. I found them in the NIO ones. Good kitty 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 8

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 9

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 10

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 11

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 12

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Dead link 13

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

-- JeffGBot ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC) reply

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1999 Pacific typhoon season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

I guess I'll review it, since it's been up for a while.

  • For starters, the lede should be rewritten. What is there is what the template used to be, but it's not that helpful. It doesn't describe the season at all. The lede should summarize the whole article, so when I look at it, I expect seeing info on various storms and some stats.
  • Another general rule of thumbs is that the default info for storms should be using the Japan Meteorological Agency. Meaning, you'll have to use the data here, and make sure that you clarify what is in 10-min winds and what is in 1-min winds. If you have difficulty with this, ask me and I can help. Check 2002 Pacific typhoon season for reference. You could even make it simple by saying all wind speeds are in 10-min sustained (once you get the JMA intensities in, that is).
    • I have done my best to convert the default info. Unfortunately, some of the season's storms are not in the JMA best track. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Can you indicate which ones didn't? And say what you did? Like, when it said "a tropical depression formed", is that per JMA? Or JTWC? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • ."for a developing broad circulation which stretched out" - which --> that
  • You mention "the Borneo coast" twice in consecutive sentences. Try some variety.
  • For Iris, you say when there is a TCFA, but not when a TD formed.
  • You don't have to say things like "Tropical Storm Iris had no effects on land". You similarly don't mention that Iris had no psychological impact on monkeys in Africa :P
  • Where was the rainfall from Jacob?
  • "Kate brought torrential rain to the north-east of Japan" - so not over Japan, or what?
    • The citation did not mention anything about Kate bringing rain to Japan. I assume the writer meant the east-central Philippines, as that is what is proven in the reference. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "The peak winds recorded on Iwo Jima were 95 km/h (60 mph), with gusts of up to 126 km/h (78 mph)." - this is unsourced
  • "Leo made landfall on May 2 as a tropical depression, after the convection had become separated from the circulation of the storm and soon dissipated overland." - bit of a run-on
  • Were there any effects by Leo in mainland China?
    • I could not find anything on Leo's impact outside of Hong Kong. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 12:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "killed at two with another 5 people" - numbers less than ten should be spelled out. Make sure this is the case for the whole article.
  • You should indicate in prose that JMA classified "Unnamed Tropical Storm (07W)" as a TS.
    • Done. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • My issue here is that you still only cite JTWC, which can't be the case since you're also including JMA data. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Optional, but you might want to put the TD's into an "Other storms" section.
    • Done. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. Would it work, in your opinion, to get rid of the infoboxes? I hate to keep reminding it, but check out 2002 Pacific typhoon season, how all of the TD's are in one section, written in prose without an infobox, with the exception of when the depressions caused notable damage. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "south of Okinawa. The depression passed near to the Japanese island" - this is weird, since there is no indication Okinawa belongs to Japan
  • "A tropical disturbance began to develop in the South China Sea on July 23 within the same monsoon trough that Tropical Storm Neil would develop from to the east" - a bit long. Try rewriting shorter.
  • Watch for overlinking. That should be simple.
  • Link for "T'aean Peninsula"?
    • There is no Wikipedia article for the "T'aean Peninsula". I do not want to put in a red link. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • But did you check for another article that could be linked to? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "400 square kilometres (150 sq mi)" - both units should be abbreviated.
  • "The Red Cross reported a further 42 deaths and 40,000 were made homeless from flooding in North Korea and that the flooding worsened the ongoing food shortages in the country" - bit long, try rewriting a bit.
  • "Early in August, a low-level circulation center within a monsoon gyre to the southwest of Guam." - verb?
  • "and began to merge with the gyre from which it had formed. As it merged with the gyre" - a bit redundant
  • "The depression moved to the west brushing the south coast of Kyūshū on August 6 before dissipating in the Yellow Sea." - something missing here? Maybe a comma or something
  • Any more impact from Paul?
  • "moved to the north under the influence of a subtropical ridge over northern Japan" - usually ridges don't cause storms to move to the north. Is this right?
  • "The storm dissipated on August 18 but its remnants were recognisable for a further two days" - what does the dissipation mean here?
  • "As the cyclone continued to intensify becoming Tropical Storm Sam on August 19, the subtropical ridge to the north shifted its track in a westwards direction towards Luzon. " - bit long/unorganized
  • "Typhoon Sam was responsible for 7 deaths in the Philippines[35] and flooding from its rainfall displaced over 4000 people and landslides closed many major roads near Baguio City" - run-on
  • "; exceeding the previous record set in 1926" - if you have a semicolon, it needs to be able to function as an independent sentence; in this case, it doesn't.
  • " total damage in Hong Kong totalled " - department of redundancy department?
    • I am not exactly receiving your point here. I reowrded the sentence. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • You have "total... totaled" - it's redundant saying both :P --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "The final advisory from the Central Pacific Hurricane Center, while Dora was still in the eastern Pacific as a minimal hurricane." - incomplete sentence
    • Corrected. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 22:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. Here is another instance that shows bias toward JTWC when it shouldn't - " the JTWC assumed responsibility for the storm". Technically, the JMA assumed responsibility, since they're the official warning center. You could say JTWC, but you need to say JMA here. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "On August 21, a small tropical cyclone developed " - why does infobox say a day earlier?
    • The reference claimed the depression formed on August 21, so I fixed that issue. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What is a "shear line"?
  • "The JMA monitored Typhoon Virgil and made it a minimal severe tropical storm at its peak." - source?

That's it through Wendy. Lemme know when you finish that so I can continue. Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC) reply

  • "The JTWC issued a TCFA... and it developed into..." implies that the JTWC developed. Watch for wording :P
  • "The depression did not intensify as it moved to the northwest brushing the northeast tip of Luzon on September 2." - add comma
  • ." It maintained this intensity until it made landfall in China 220 km (140 mi) east-northeast of Hong Kong the next day. " - there is no indication here what "the next day" means, since there is no date in this or the previous sentence.
  • "fuelled" --> "fueled"
  • "with Wenzhou being particularly badly hit" - could probably be written better.
  • "$275 million" - you should mention somewhere how you deal with damage totals.
  • "18 people were killed in landslides in northern Luzon" - you should avoid starting sentences with a number
  • What are "direct economic losses"?
  • You should try and get a damage total for Hong Kong for York. As of now, it sounds like $10 million, and then compared to the rest of China having $24 million, it makes me wonder why there is so much attention on HK and less for rest of China.
    • Clarified. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Ehh, not so sure it is. It'd be nice having the Hong Kong dollar converted to USD, and it's still unclear whether the economic losses from York is the same or different from the $10 million USD. I think that'd help clarify everything. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "about 165 km (103 mi)" - watch out for rounding
    • According to the convert template, that is the correct conversion. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
      • You shouldn't be using the convert template though :P 103 isn't a rounded number. You should just write it out so both are divisible by 5. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What were the origins of Ann? Trough? (don't guess though)
  • "Bart intensified further as it turned to the northeast under the influence of upper-level winds." - usually upper-level winds don't help intensification, so how
  • What does " and further $5 million of damage to the Japanese economy" mean?
  • "It developed into the 25th depression of the season" - according to JTWC or JMA? If JMA, remember that they don't include TD's in the best track.
  • " The depression gradually intensified becoming Tropical Storm Cam on September 24 and reaching its peak with 75 km/h (45 mph) later that day, as its motion gradually turned towards the north." - bit long. Could use some more commas and some splitting up.
    • Split up into three sentences and added in a couple of commas. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "As Tropical Storm Cam approached Hong Kong, the HKO hoisted the No. 8 Signal for the fifth time in the year, the last time this had occurred was in 1964." - I'm not sure, but I think this could use a semicolon after year.
  • "There was some disruption to flights into the territory, with 100 flights cancelled or delayed" - no need to mention "flights" twice
  • "and Dan set these back efforts back." - not sure what you're going for
  • How can a storm "damage a large number of trees"? I can see if it knocked them down, but damaged?
  • Saying where "Agrihan" is would help TD 28's section. Also, what is " tail-end of shearline"
    • A.) Done. B.) I wikilinked "Shear line" before, and I reworded the sentence. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The track of Frankie suggests there is probably more impact.
  • "A suspect area of low pressure" - suspect?
  • " A subtropical ridge to the north of the system determined the motion of the storm as it moved southwest" - could be simpler
  • Again, all of the TD's could be put into a singular "Other storms" section. See any of the recent Pacific typhoon articles.
  • In general, with regards to my first comment, you shouldn't mention TD 07W or whatever for the TD stage, since that gives too much credence to the JTWC, even though JMA is the official warning center. And again, make sure throughout the article that you clarify whether winds are in 1-min or 10-min. They should be 10-min if they're from the JMA.
    • As above, I will clarify the information later on once the lede is rewritten. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 11:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I have fixed the comment regarding TD 07W. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 13:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That's it for my first look through the article. Mostly minor things, but a few big things that need to be done (notably what's immediately above). Cheers! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC) reply

To clarify, and what could be the biggest thing that needs to be done, the article needs to be converted from JTWC to JMA, meaning all of the winds in the article should have JMA as a default (and possibly add it as a note that they're from there, and they're in 10 minute winds, see 2002 Pacific typhoon season). I could help with the process, but I'm afraid I'd have to stop my review if so. You're welcome to withdraw, and I'd help you in the conversion, since you did a good job with the prose. Just throwing it out there. And it shouldn't take as long next time to get it reviewed. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Looking much better already. Just some more JMA converting needed, and I added a few other replies above. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Do you have any questions about the outstanding issues? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 02:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Are you still working on the article? It's quite close, but if work isn't continued, then I'll have to fail the GAN. It's been up for a month now. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC) reply

How much more time is left before the GAN gets failed? I will need to find some time to work on it in the coming days. Hurricane Andrew ( 444) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply
Well, it has been up for a month. How long til you think you can finish it? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1999 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1999 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:11, 4 June 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:1999_Pacific_typhoon_season&oldid=1196331263"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE