Talk:Cyclone Chapala

Great work BUT ...

Great work but what about Somalia specifically Puntlands Ras hafun  ?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ذو سواد ملكي مكروبي بنطي (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything via English sources for Somalia but that's not to say Arabic and Somali sources don't have useful information. I don't know the languages at all and can't search for info that well. Can't speak for other editors, though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Chapala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) 21:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article, comments to follow soon. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lede

• First sentence is very overbearing, fitting three ideas into one. Best to focus on the most notable (mainland Yemen landfall imo) and include the others elsewhere in the lede
• Don't think using "very rare" is encyclopedic as it gives arbitrary context, if any.
• Piped link to Tropical cyclone scales#North Indian Ocean is needed for "very severe cyclonic storm"
• JTWC peak should be mentioned given the significant difference between their estimate and the IMD
• At that time it was the second-strongest named cyclone on record over the Arabian Sea, behind only Gonu of 2007. – Overly specific record is overly specific. If you feel it warrants mention, I won't push to remove it, but I don't feel that specifying the subset of named storms in the NIO (which is only 11 years of storms) is worth noting.
  • This also disagrees with what's sourced in the body of the article. There's no mention of the IMD intensity being a record, only the JTWC intensity.
• A brief summary of preparations is needed; two or three sentences should suffice.
• More details are needed on the impact all around.
• Details on aftermath are needed as well.

I totally rewrote the lead. I believe I addressed the concerns, and then some. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Meteorological history

• Standards notes are needed for the IMD and JTWC roles

• Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• ... which induced cooler and drier air into the circulation. – Don't think "induced" is the proper word to use here, but can't think of a proper replacement at the moment

• Changed to causing cooler and drier air to enter the circulation. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• According to the JTWC, Chapala moved ashore and immediately turned back over water, although the land interaction and dry air severely diminished the thunderstorms over the center. – Wording is a bit clunky here and repeats what's already known.

• Merged with the subsequent sentence :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• The agency soon after relocated the center over land. – I don't think the JTWC controls where storms move

• Done :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• I made a few minor copyedits in the section, please double-check these to make sure I didn't alter intended meanings.

• Looks great! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Oman

• Dates of when warnings were issued are needed

• Added. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Somalia

• Timing information needed in the first sentence

• It doesn't say, just that people were advised not to cross. The reference is from after the storm. I can research further if you want me to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yemen

• Timing information needed somewhere for warnings or substantial preparations. The first paragraph works without it, however.

• I added it in the second paragraph. Not sure how many references to time you want, but I can add more if needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Elsewhere, the village of Jilah was largely destroyed by the cyclone when about 80% of the structures were flooded... – the "largely destroyed" claim is not supported by the cited source.

• Hmm, I think I remember one of my (gazillion of RW links) sources saying that, but I missed citing it, so I removed that part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Overall a very comprehensive and well-written article, but as usual you neglected to improve the lede so that's where most of the issues are. Refs could probably use some cleaning up as well, but they're not really problematic enough to be an issue for GA status. Should be relatively easy to fix up so I'll place the nomination on hold for now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I gotta stop GAN'ing stuff without checking the lead :P Hope it's better now, and I'll continue making any changes you see fit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work with the new lede! Made a few more copyedits but the article is good to go now so I'm passing it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)