Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Rammasun (2008)/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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 17:08, 17 January 2009.

Typhoon Rammasun (2008)

 * Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk)

Typhoon Rammasun was one of two Super Typhoons that formed during the 2008 Pacific typhoon season. Rammasun is also tied with Intense Tropical Cyclone Hondo as the second strongest storm during 2008 in terms of central pressure. Thus it was felt that this was one of the more important articles of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season to improve and give an FAC to. Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review
 * All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

These issues should be easy to resolve. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Rammasun 2008 track.png - Please list the authors of the image in the "author" field.
 * File:Rammasun 5-12-08 2230Z.jpg - Please link to the HTML page where the image is found, not directly to the JPG file, per WP:IUP.
 * Done Jason Rees (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, til comments resolved - Seems pretty good, but prose could use some tune-up.


 * the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert on the developing disturbance.  - Comma after next day, reads better
 * In the same section, you should mention in there that the acronyms refer to the above agencies. ie. PAGASA
 * Rammasun caused a total of $8.6 million worth of damage - Mention currency in lead, too
 * Although there were no reported deaths from the typhoon, there were 40 people sustained injuries. - Replace it with - that sustained...
 * Move the naming section up.
 * which made it a Category 4 super typhoon. - Replace it with making it a....
 * I hope I can support this article. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All Done Jason Rees (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then, I gladly support. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 01:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Typhoon Rammasun (International designation: 0802, JTWC designation: 03W, PAGASA name: Butchoy) was recognized as the second tropical storm and the second typhoon of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) and the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). - This sentence is a bit of a mess. There are abbreviations, redlinks, parenthesis; try to break it up.
 * Um Julian there arent any redlinks in the lead of Typhoon Rammasun, but done.Jason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rammasun formed on May 5 as a tropical disturbance, the next day the Joint Typhoon Warning Center issued a tropical cyclone formation alert on the developing disturbance. - Replace the comma with a semicolon or a full stop.
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On May 7 both the JTWC and the Japan Meteorological Agency designated the disturbance as a tropical depression while PAGASA named the depression Butchoy. - Needs a comma.
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Within Japan an estimated 10 hectares (24.7 acres) of farmland was damaged. - "Was" &rarr; "were".
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Although there were no reported deaths from the typhoon, there were 40 people that sustained injuries. - Why not just "there were 40 injuries"?
 * SortedJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Early on May 6, the JTWC upgraded the disturbances chances of forming in to a tropical cyclone within 24 hours to "fair", as the low level circulation center had consolidated further. - This sentence doesn't add much to the article, but in any event, "in to" should be one word.
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A tropical cyclone formation alert was then issued later that day, by the JTWC who upgraded the disturbance's chances of becoming a tropical cyclone by the next day as good. - "As" &rarr; "to".
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This came after the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) had designated the disturbance as a tropical depression. - This is very awkwardly worded.
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At this time the depression was located to the east of Mindanao in the Philippines. - Rather vague. How far east?
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The storm history seems to drag on; it comprises primarily of boring statistics by the tracking agencies. Isn't there any meteorological information that would be interesting?
 * I dont think so but ill double check Guam Stuff when it loads.Jason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * .[22][23]. - Strange punctuation.
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Along with moderate to heavy rain, winds gusted up to 85 km/h (50 km/h) as the storm moved out to sea. - How could a storm move out to sea if it's already at sea?
 * SortedJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * After Rammassun had become extratropical a strong storm from the "tail" of the former typhoon struck the Philippines. - What kind of storm?
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The winds brought by the storm caused severe damage to some buildings and numerous amounts of trees some weighing tonnes were uprooted. - Run-on sentence, but do we really need to know how much the trees weighed?
 * DoneJason Rees (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Reference #36 needs publisher information. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Jason Rees (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. Example only - current ref 22 (Nothern Bald Ibis... RSPB).
 * Ok ive spelt all of the abreviations out in the Publisher field. Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are there so many see also links? Why is the Atlantic season listed and the Indian one, when this one never went near those oceans?
 * Ok ive removed some of the non revelant links.Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose
 * This is a nice article, but I'm just going to oppose on the grounds that tropical systems that never struck land and didn't kill anybody ought not to have featured articles. GA fine, FA I oppose.  There has to be an importance threshold somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see anywhere in the FA criteria that storms can only have featured articles if they make landfall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles should be judged on their quality, not on whether or not anybody was killed. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a voting process, my opinion can always be ignored, but my opinion is that at some point importance has to matter. Otherwise we'll be having featured articles about tropical depressions and bus stops, and the whole thing will become meaningless.  I just can't see having featured articles about the countless Pacific storms that whip up in the open water and recurve without ever touching land, unless there is something particularly notable about them. Looie496 (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your point. We already have FAs on tropical depressions. Additionally, why does it matter if we have a bunch of storm FAs? IMO, it's better to have an FA than a stub, regardless of the subject's interest and notability. Regards, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Post-mortem and disappointed strong oppose. Overall writing is bad, and I honestly don't think the article is a good example of how a typhoon article should look. Significant rewriting is needed.
 * The Infobox is wrong. The formation date is when the JMA first classified it as a depression. The met. history only says that a disturbance formed on the 5th, nothing that it was a depression.
 * The first paragraph of the lede is far too long-winded. It tells me nothing, just its place within the season (without even telling me the month). Here's a tidbit - every item linked in the first paragraph is wikilinked twice, which is clearly an example of over-linking. Compare the first paragraph of the lede to any of the other featured typhoon articles, and you'll see it's underwhelming and overall not helpful. I am personally not a fan of "was recognized as the second typhoon of the 2008 Pacific typhoon season". It immediately introduces an awkward element into the writing, by saying "was recognized". As the JMA is the official agency, it doesn't matter who recognizes it as what, in terms of what it really is. Because JMA said so, Rammasun was definitively the 2nd typhoon of the season. But then you introduce the JTWC element. First, it's unsourced that it was the third JTWC storm. Second, it mentions super typhoon (and tropical storm, for that matter), without explaining them. Super typhoon is an unofficial term, but you never explain in the article what it even is.
 * The second paragraph of the lede starts out poorly. As I said before, it is wrong to say Rammasun formed on May 5th. If you're referring to when the JTWC first mentioned it, then it was not a tropical cyclone then. The first sentence is also not a complete sentence; either it's missing a semi-colon, a verb, or a conjunction. More importantly, is it necessary to go into such origins of the precursor (like mentioning the unofficial TCFA)? Why not just start when it actually became a tropical cyclone? That leads to a broader concern that the second paragraph goes into too much detail (such as on JTWC), or at the very least that there is very little flow. The whole met. history portion of the lede is very bland writing, basically just one sentence on each event in its duration. You don't mention anything about the location (anywhere in the lede, mind you, prior to the impact). BTW, all units need to be linked in their first usage in prose, which you haven't done yet. The paragraph is also vague about its impact in the Philippines. The impact section, while almost equally as vague, still says that the impact in the Philippines came from a "tail", whereas the lede doesn't say anything about the typhoon going anywhere near the archipelago.
 * Moving on (since I don't want to spend all night on this) - the meteorological history has original research/false information. The first reference doesn't say a LPA formed on May 4. It just says that convection persisted, on May 5. Either a reference is missing, or it is original research. Furthermore, that leads me to wonder - where did it come from? Did an area of convection just magically appear? Next, the JTWC did not "[upgrade] the area of low pressure to a tropical disturbance" - they didn't upgrade anything, and the source surely doesn't even mention a low pressure area. Also, is it really that important to say that the JTWC "assessed the disturbances chances of forming in to a significant tropical cyclone within 24 hours as poor". First, that's a really long-winded way of saying that the agency didn't think it be likely to develop, but more importantly, most disturbances aren't thought to be likely contenders to develop! You're putting too much emphasis on what the JTWC assessed the system as. Remember, JTWC isn't official: what's more important is what happened, not what was said about what was happening. When a TCFA was issued (BTW, ref #3 is broken), what happened meteorologically with the actual storm? Surely, since the JMA is official, it should be mentioned somewhere in the first paragraph.
 * In the beginning of the second MH paragraph, I notice a cite web error. You say for ref's #4 and #5 that the warning was on 07-06-2008. I have no idea what that means, but it brings up two points. One, the storm was in May, so there's no way it could either be "07" or "06", and more importantly, all of the refs in the article need a publish date. "790 kms, (490 miles)" - fix that, it's wrong and doesn't follow the MoS. Watch out for poor transitions - "The JTWC then designated the depression as Tropical Depression 02W." First of all, that's false, as the lede says it was the 3rd cyclone of the season (meaning you didn't check the article very closely). Second, it's a pretty major jump to be classified as a tropical cyclone. That brings back my earlier point of not having enough actual information. The entire second paragraph is about what the agencies said. What did the actual cyclone do? Where did it go, and why?
 * The third paragraph has the same problem, of not having nearly enough meteorological information. It is just wind speeds and designations. I won't go into a significant review of the particular paragraph, since it needs more details (when did the eye form, what allowed it to strengthen so much, what was its closest approach to land, where did it peak), but I'll point out two main problems. You act like the SSHS is officially used in the WPAC, which it isn't - I don't even think the JTWC uses SSHS. Second, your mention of Hondo is weird, as it has no context. Where was Hondo? What measures strongest? You should specify in terms of pressure", as in terms of winds, Jangmi was stronger.
 * Same as above, more met. details are needed in the 4th paragraph. What caused it to weaken? What caused it to turn to the northeast? Again, there should be less focus on JTWC. How close did it pass to Japan? What happened after it became extratropical? I have a problem with the last sentence of the MH - "they downgraded it to an extratropical low". The source indicates the winds stayed the same, so it wasn't a downgrade by any means, just ET.
 * The "Naming, preparations and impact" section is lackluster. Generally, naming should be the last paragraph of the last section, not first. I do like how you mentioned it was one of 10 names by Thailand. The paragraph is probably the best in the article.
 * The second paragraph should probably be merged with the other Philippine info. BTW, there needs to be more explanation about the Philippine impact. Was that storm related to Rammasun? Was it monsoon-induced rainfall, as the preps paragraph mentioned, or was it an entirely different storm? If it was different, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. I don't like how there are only two sources for the Philippine impact, and both are within a week of the storm. Surely someone should know later on what happened there.
 * The Japanese impact is fine, though it'd be nice if there was more.
 * So that's my oppose. Good luck addressing all of that, or if you don't want to, then I would suggest withdrawing it. After this edit, I will return to retirement (I felt a need to comment here, though). I'll check back periodically to see much, if any, progress occurred. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.