Talk:History of tropical cyclone naming/GA3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Seeing as I have five GAN's up now, I might as well review one.

  • "The system currently used provides" - so as to avoid a Garden path sentence, why not say "the system currently in place provides..."? Better flow then. Ditto with later in the article
  • "Formal naming schemes have subsequently been introduced for the North and South Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Western and Southern Pacific basins as well as the Australian region and Indian Ocean." - seeing as you're talking about all of the TC basins, why not say - "Formal naming schemes have subsequently been introduced for all of the major tropical cyclone basins." If you want to say what they are, then say "tropical cyclone basins, which are the North and South Atlantic....."
  • "regarding forecasts, watches, and warnings." - I notice here you use the oxford comma, but earlier in the article you don't. Make sure you're consistent.
  • "Since the systems can last a week or longer and more than one can be occurring in the same basin at the same time" - this just feels clunky. Try "Due to the potential for longevity and multiple concurrent storms, the names..." Ditto later
  • "Names are assigned in order from predetermined lists with one, three, or ten-minute sustained wind speeds of more than 65 km/h (40 mph) depending on which basin it originates in." - this seems to be covering two different ideas. You should say something like "are assigned... once storms reach one, three, or ten-minute..." Otherwise it's not clear what one has to do with the other. Ditto with the usage later.
  • Link retirement in the lead? IDK
    • I dont think we link to sections later in the article.
  • "with systems named after places or things they hit before the formal start of naming" - could you provide an example? For places, you could cite NHC using 1900 Galveston hurricane, for example. I think the Hispanic name day system (Hurricane San Felipe) is a great example. That seems to be a glaring omission from the article, but it shouldn't be hard to add. Also, I'm not the biggest fan of the term "things". I'm guessing you don't mean the Phonetic alphabet, as you use that later, so I'm not sure what you mean by "things".
  • You have an image of Typhoon Cobra, but you don't talk about it in the prose. How come?
    • I am guessing this[1] may be the reason. I am not sure how to word it in the article, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason is because the specific system itself doesnt need to be spoken about, but the system used to talk about it does and is mentioned.Jason Rees (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before the system was made official before the start of the next season" - don't use "before" twice
  • "However, as Hurricanes Carol, Edna, and Hazel affected the populated Northeastern United States, controversy raged with several protests over the use of women’s names as it was felt to be ungentlemanly and or insulting to womenhood.[9][12][13] However, letters were subsequently received that overwhelmingly supported the practise, with forecasters claiming that 99% of correspondence received in the Miami Weather Bureau supported the use of women’s names for hurricanes." - don't start back to back sentences with "however".
  • When you're talking about JTWC starting up, you say "which subsequently started naming the systems for the Western Pacific basin". You should say something like "which continued naming systems..." as WPAC naming was in place for several years before.
  • "Eventually it was decided to throw names from all over the South Pacific into a pot at a training course, where each course member" - too colloquial. Also, what were the members? Different nations?
    • Fixed the colloquialism. Don't have enough info for the rest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding NIO - [1] - IMD began naming in 2004 after the monsoon season ended. Not sure if that's too trivial, but it explains why a storm earlier that year wasn't named.
I don't think its needed since the section explains that the naming started in September and that the lists were not completed until May. You never know one or both of the systems may have caused India to submit the names.Jason Rees (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have two "citations needed" in the "New millennium" section
    • I feel that the fact covered by the first CN is one of those that provides an end to the story of a significant event in terms of TC Naming in that region. However, there is currently not a reliable source for this fact - i hope to have one after the WMO committee for the region meet in September. The second was awaiting either a reliable source that states Bapo and Cari were both used this year or Steve Young's Southern Hemisphere TC Summary which is published next month, however, i think Jeff Masters can be used here.Jason Rees (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should link the article for Cyclone Viyaru somewhere around where you mention it
  • "However, standards vary from basin to basin, with some tropical depressions named in the Western Pacific, while tropical cyclones have to have a significant amount of gale-force winds occurring around the center before they are named within the Southern Hemisphere.[citation needed][60][78]" - fix citation needed.
    • Changed to "Southwest Indian Basin", since a) the first source seems to support this and b) articles on other southern hemisphere cyclones don't appear to agree. If a source is found that the same principle applies elsewhere we can re-rewrite it, I think.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the principle has been recently changed for Aus/SPAC to indicate the presence of gale force winds near the centre that are likely to continue. As a result i will change it back to the SHEM. I am still looking for a decent source for Tropical Depression naming.Jason Rees (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a good article, but some work needs to be done. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ David Longshore (1 January 2009). Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons, and Cyclones, New Edition. Infobase Publishing. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4381-1879-6.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_tropical_cyclone_naming/GA3&oldid=668682298"