Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of tropical cyclone naming/archive1


 * 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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2015.

History of tropical cyclone naming

 * Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Over the last few years I have had a lot of fun while researching and writing the article on the History of tropical cyclone naming. As a result of this research, I feel that I have built up the most comprehensive article on the history of tropical cyclone naming worldwide, as most guides focus on a particular basin like the Atlantic. I feel that the next logical step for this article after passing its GAN is to get it featured and would welcome any feedback on it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Quick comment. The bit about Mahasen seems a bit too much detail for the article, considering it was only one storm, and didn't really affect practice in the basin. You should probably cut down on that a bit. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After cutting it down privately, I now think its rather trivial for the article and have removed it.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This is my review just of the lead, but there are some issues there that need to be addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back many years, with systems named after places or things they hit before the formal start of naming." - the opening is rather weasel-y, such as "many years", and "or things". What do you mean by "things"? In addition, you say that the start of naming goes back to Wragge, who used human names, so human names were used before the formal start of naming. You follow with "Examples of such names are 1928 "Okechobee" and 1938 "New England". First, there is a typo in there (it's Okeechobee), second the name wasn't "1928 Okeechobee" (it was 1928 Okeechobee hurricane), and third, you don't include a "thing" here, just another location.
 * "The system currently in place provides positive identification of severe weather systems in a brief form that is readily understood and recognized by the public." - I'm not really sure what this means. "positive identification"? And it's not all severe weather systems, just tropical cyclones in this article.
 * The thinking was that the naming of tropical cyclones is a positive thing as it raises awareness etc, however, I have tweaked it to: The system currently in place provides identification of tropical cyclones in a brief form that is easily understood and recognized by the public.Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is generally given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named systems between 1887 and 1907. " - again, this article is about tropical cyclone naming. Did Wragge name non-tropical systems? The way you use "weather systems" here is confusing in that regard.
 * As far as I know he named all sorts of systems including tropical and non tropical systems, so i have tweaked the wording to: The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907..Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the South Atlantic Ocean really a major tropical cyclone basin?
 * Probably not - so ive tweaked the wording to now read: been introduced for several tropical cyclone basins, including the North and South Atlantic, Eastern, Central, Western and Southern Pacific basins as well as the Australian region and Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The start of the second lead paragraph is a bit long, and could probably be split after the eleven meteorological services.
 * Tweaked.Jason Rees (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "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." - this could be ordered better - it is currently very back heavy, and it is a bit daunting to read.
 * Tweaked.Jason Rees (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the second lead paragraph is lifted straight out of the "modern day" section. I think there could be a bit more about the history in the lead. The only date mentioned is when Wragge was forecaster.
 * I have added some more details to the history section, while the second section has been tweaked.Jason Rees (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Coordinator note: This nomination was initiated on September 21, but the nominator did not place it on WP:FAC. It has now been added. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for now on prose and style. I feel like this article could've benefited from a peer review or the solicitation of an experienced copy-editor. Continuing on Hurricanehink's comments above, the wording of the article is weak and unclear in many places, which is my main concern. As it stands it does not read as a cohesive and fluid whole.  Auree  ★ ★  10:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vague terminology such as "many years", "subsequently" "The system currently in place" (what system is that?), as well confusion between these terms: "system" is used for both tropical cyclones and the practice of naming ("This system of naming weather systems" is particularly awkward). This is not something I'd expect of an FAC.
 * Weasel-y, subpar sentences with poor context run rampant throughout the article. Examples:
 * "This system of naming weather systems subsequently fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of the Second World War." - What made it fall into disuse? when/why did Wragge retire? Why was it revived?
 * Why was the system revived I dont know and nor does the Dorst reference, since all he states is it was a natural thing that just happened. As for Wragges stuff i am not sure and will try and do a bit of digging, but we have to bear in mind that this is the C19 when communications were not as great as they are today.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "However, they were not able to persuade the United States Weather Bureau (USWB) to start naming Atlantic hurricanes, as it was felt that the system was "not appropriate" to use while warning the United States public." - "However" makes for an awkward start of a new paragraph; who is "they"?; "it was felt" by whom?; what system exactly?; "not appropriate" in what way?" Overall this doesn't follow logically after the preceding text as an opener for a new paragraph.
 * It was not meant as a start of a new paragraph and as a result, I have jigged the paragraphs around to better reflect this.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "They also felt that using women's names was frivolous and that using the names in official communications would have made them look silly." - "frivolous" in what way? Make them look silly? As in children in high school?
 * Basically yep, i believe they wanted to look like a really serious agency and have tweaked the wording to reflect this.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "A name is retired or withdrawn if a consensus or majority of members agree that the tropical cyclone has acquired a special notoriety, such as causing a large amount of deaths, damages, impacts or for other special reasons" - A consensus can't "agree" to something; "notoriety" is a little awkward for an inanimate phenomenon; "impacts" is redundant to damage and deaths; "or for other special reasons" is awkward in succession of "such as".


 * Numerous vague entities/agencies are mentioned, some with largely unknown abbreviations in their names, without proper introduction/wiki-linking or further elaboration on their authority, significance, or purpose (e.g. "ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee," "WMO/ESCAP Panel on North Indian Tropical Cyclones," " RA V Tropical Cyclone Committee," "RSMC La Reunion," among others), likewise with some presumed figures of authority (who is George Stewart and what made him inspired? What did he read about Clement Wragge?).
 * Hang on a sec.... I don't think history records what made George Stewart inspired or what he read about Clement Wragge. He is wiki-linked though on first mention and since the story was read by forecasters who went on to restart the naming of hurricanes I feel it is relevant to mention. As for the rest of your comments im not sure how to play them, as i think it would be way to much to start introducing them all in prose.Jason Rees (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Style issues are abundant. At the moment, commas are used inconsistently for temporal clauses ("During 1944, United States Army Forces" and "After reading about Clement Wragge, George" vs. "During 1977 the" and "At the 22nd hurricane committee in 2000 it") as well as other participles ("However," but also "However"). Hyphens are used in place of en dashes throughout. Most markedly, the table for tropical cyclone naming institutions is, quite frankly, an unsightly mess; the manner in which the areas of responsibilities are delineated is inconsistent and violates the MOS on several grounds. Lastly, references are formatted in a variety of styles at this point.

While not an exhaustive review of the entire piece, these are some of the article's many most prominent problems, in the areas of prose and style alone. Good information is present, but I suggest withdrawing and asking a pair of independent eyes or two to extensively look over the text.  Auree  ★ ★  10:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and I will work on the comments later, but i am not going to withdraw a 7 day old FAC and ask someone to look at it when FAC is the best peer review process around.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage
Briefly examining prose, because of objections above:
 * You mention WW II code names in an image caption, but not in text.
 * The practise has been mentioned in text (1944/1945), but i am not a fan off adding individual storm names into the prose sections unless its relevant.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not what I'm talking about. You mention the 1944+ use of the names of "wives and girlfriends", and then the 1947 use of the Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet. However, neither of these explains the 1941 Typhoon Cobra that you highlight in the associated image caption. In fact, the history of WW II code names for tropical systems is more complicated that you imply here. Initially, the phonetic alphabet was used. But since that was being used for everything, it was deemed too confusing, and tropical systems were then code-named after animals. Although several animals were reused repeatedly (Bear and Wolf, especially), the two most historically significant of these storms were Typhoon Cobra and Typhoon Viper (better known as Typhoon Connie. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not related to WW II, but while I'm on the topic of comprehensiveness, you note that early unofficial names were selected for "places, saints or things they hit". For one thing, that's ungrammatical, because the construction equates to "places they hit, saints they hit, or things they hit". But you might also want to provide examples of this style of naming other than place-names. There were systems in the period named in other ways as well, such as the Siebold Typhoon (referring to its study by Philipp Franz von Siebold). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Typhoon Cobra was 1944 not 1941 - as a result I think it is covered, however, i must confess to not being aware that the phonetic alphabet or animals were used to name systems during WW2. Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am currently doing some double checking into this but will note that Dorst notes that he does not know if the names Cobra and Viper were used in operations or made up for George Kosco's 1967 book.Jason Rees (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Was indeed my typo on the date there. In any case, if the latter, they have been widely reported. Longshore (2008) [1998&#93; mentions the other animal naming (p. 405). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

References and reference formatting:
 * The §Modern day presents chronology problems, because much of the material there overlaps the previous two sections. For example, Greek letter storms were planned for after the 1985 season (for the Eastern Pacific, at least...). But then the §New millennium fails to even mention the 2005 season that actually employed them. We read past events in 2008, 2010, and 2015 before going back to mention the 2005 naming.
 * I am unsure if it is actually worth adding a sentence on the Greek names being used in 2005 to the New millennium section. I am also unsure how the Modern day section overlaps the previous two sections when it deals with the current system of naming.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You discuss the retirement of names, in §New millennium before explaining what that is or when it was introduced. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you never actually inform the reader when that practice began.
 * I am unsure of when the practise of retiring names started in each basin with the exception of the Atlantic. I am also unsure the Modern day section, overlaps the previous two sections. Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts ive decided to remove the Greek naming part and threaded it into the New millennium section. Am unsure on the Modern Day section and may remove it.Jason Rees (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see at least two date formats: mmm dd, yyyy and yyyy-mm-dd.
 * All dates should now be consistant in MM DD YYYY or MM YYYY.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dorst reference should use |at instead of |p to prevent this ugly mess: "p. Slides 8–72."
 * How is that coded into the citation templates? Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As noted, use "|at=Slides 8–72" instead of |p. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Cry is an article in a journal. You are citing a digitization of a bound volume of that journal, and that's fine, but this still needs to be formatted like a journal citation. Mariners Weather Log, for example, is the journal title.
 * It has been formatted like a journal citation AFAIK - I just had the Mariners Weather Log in type rather than Journal. If this is still wrong please let me know.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if you are citing a digitized copy, print sources do not require retrieval dates (indeed, retrieval dates are discouraged per the MOS). The idea here is that the digital copy is a convenience link, rather than a mandatory aspect of verification. The Norton article in Monthly Weather Review is one example, but there are several.
 * So that we are clear here: Can you define what you mean by print sources (I assume newspapers, journals and reports but would like clarification). Also are you trying to say that accessdates are not needed in general or just for printed stuff.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * General rule: anything that was initially created in printed form – book, journal article, newspaper report – is a print source. If you are citing to a digitised version of such a source, e.g. a google book, jstor article, newspaper etc, then you don't need an access date. If, however,  the article etc  has been incorporated into a website in a revised format, i.e. is no longer a digitised copy of your source, then   you do need an access date.  Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The Padgett source is missing bibliographical information. Furthermore, I am not convinced that the actual source, the website Australia Severe Weather, is reliable.
 * Im not sure which bibliographical information is missing but either way its a self published source, by someone (Gary Padgett) who has been deemed to be reliable during previous FAC's. This is because he has had information passed to him by people working in the various warning centres and has been used as a reference by warning centres in their [seasonal summaries] at times.Jason Rees (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Padgett in reference 41 includes the website as Australian Severe Weather; your other citations to Padgett do not. You should be consistent. I'd probably prefer it was there, but others may differ. Whether or not to capitalize this (and how to suppress it, if not) is one of those awkward questions of web formatting. In any case, I'll begrudgingly withdraw my objections to using Padgett in this FAC, as it seems FAC has been broadly accepting this source for years. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have included |website=Australian Severe Weather on all of the citations now.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Decide Next Month On Use Of Girl's Names For Hurricanes" is incorrectly cited. You give the location of the Times-News [sic] as Washington. In fact, Washington is the location of the story, not the newspaper. The Times-News is actually from Hendersonville, NC. Also, newspapers in general do not require publishers.
 * Fixed my mistake with the location and have removed publishers.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see ... you actually cite The Times-News twice; you corrected one location problem, but not the other (ironically, you fixed the one I didn't explicitly mention). Regardless, in both cases, the periodical should be styled with The. Also, a substantial number of journal articles have publishers; I should have been more clear, perhaps, because they do not require publishers any more than newspapers do. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

And at this point, I'm stopping the reference review. In light of the many problems raised above, as well as what I've identified in a cursory examination, I regretfully must oppose promtion and urge withdrawal. This is not ready to be judged against the FA standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all of your comments and would love for you to look over and follow them up. However, as indicated above i am not about to withdraw this article, from the FAC process when its the best step for it in my view and experience.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will try to find time to examine the references more thoroughly. I would like to express my personal objections, however, to the idea that FAC is "the best peer review process around". That may be the case, but it is not what this process is for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed here. FACs are expected to be at least close to meeting the criteria (which can be found out during the peer review process). With such an extensive plethora of significant issues, this is evidently not the case here.  Auree   ★ ★  17:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Digging further into reference formatting, in addition to what's noted above:
 * Mújica-Baker is throwing a template error. If this is a non-English source, it needs its language specified.
 * The 1935 letter to the editor in The Examiner has an author in the source (G. M. Barnard). Additionally, newspapers (with a handful of obvious exceptions) do need a location. In this case, Launceston, Tasmania.
 * Added.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not entirely clear to me whether the Anstett website should be considered a reliable source.
 * Its a tricky one to call really but my view is that I have verified that he was a forecaster for the JTWC and thats what makes it reliable in my view.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The source cited as "W.B., Issues 36–38. South Africa Weather Bureau. 1960." is a Google mangling of whatever this actually IS. Google does very, very poorly with bound collections of journals and creates titles for them through some algorithmic process. Or magic, for all I can tell. This almost certainly should be cited as a journal, but I have no idea what the correct title should be, much less the additional necessary bibliographic information.
 * What you are citing as "South-West Indian Ocean Cyclone Season: 2000–01" (currently ref #22) is not cited at all correctly. Your link is to the digital archive of a print source. In this case, it is actually an annual periodical. There is probably more than one way to cite this, but it doesn't make our job easy. It doesn't provide explicit volume numbers, nor publication dates; it is dated solely by the year-range season it represents; accordingly, I've opted to style that as the (nonconventional) volume number, and so would cite it thusly:


 * What you are citing as "Tropical Cyclones of 1963. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services Administration. p. 45." is probably not cited correctly. This is another Thing That Google Did. I'm going to bet this is either an annual publication that should be cited like a periodical or an excerpt from some book source, but I've failed to identify it, and the tiny blurred thumbnail title page offers insufficient guidance.
 * In the Dioquino source, [O]nline.
 * For the source cited as "14. When did the naming of cyclones begin?", I don't see any compelling reason to title the source by the specific question cited; the title of the page is "Frequently Asked Questions" (although based on the layout, I would not object to "Tropical Cyclone Frequently Asked Questions". This lets you eliminate your |type field, which isn't what that field is intended for, precisely (the field name is short for "media type"; it rarely applies to web sources).
 * There is not precise consensus for which websites should and should not have their names italicized, and dealing with the template ramifications is sometimes a work of art. However, in the Samenow source, Washington Post absolutely needs italics. You can move that to the |website field, which should do it for you.
 * The DeAngellis source should look more like the Cry source (once that has had its publisher culled).
 * Force italics in the via field for "Sex-Shift in Australia".
 * The "National Hurricane Operational Plan: 1978" has an actual author (not just a position title): Richard E. Hallgren. I'd go ahead and add "|id=FCM 78-2" to the citation, as that's its government publication id number.
 * Does McAdie et al. have an ISBN assigned?
 * Not that i could see.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Big Blows to get his and her names" probably needs Daytona Beach, FL added as a location.
 * Added.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kirkman needs the newspaper italicized, and its location added (Lewiston, ME). Also, probably a section and page number (|section=4 |page=25), although strictly speaking, those are optional. There's no reason not to, though, as you have them available.
 * Added the lot.Jason Rees (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For "National Hurricane Operations Plan 1987", the coordinator's (and thus author's) name is Robert L. Carnahan. I'd include "|id=FCM-P12-1987".
 * For Lomarda (1998) and Lomarda (1999), if a periodical publication only includes one set of numbering values, convention (and the MOS) is to call that the |volume, even if the source calls it |number or |issue (in order to produce the correct format styling). At least from my current location, these sources aren't loading, so I can't really speak further about the formatting here.

I am particularly unimpressed by some of the sourcing. It's always a huge red flag for me when something is sourced to a Google Books snippet preview for a work where Google mangled the bibliographical information, because it strongly suggests that the editor has only examined the snippet out of context, and not actually consulted the source. Despite some improvements, my opinions on the merits of this article for promotion remain unchanged at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggest withdrawal - there's just too much to do here for this to have a chance of succeeding this time around, and FAC is not intended to replace PR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * @FAC I think i am going to have to withdraw as a few things have come up that i have to deal with elsewhere. However, in response to 's comments about the google snippets, i will say that i have always been very careful with how I interpret information form them.Jason Rees (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Graham Beards (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.