Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)

Todo

You need more than one source, and you need to do some more summarizing on your own. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Relies too much on JTWC, wording needs changing, stom stregnth in inofobx should follow basin standards, i.e., knots (km/h, mph). NSLE 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] (so I don't lose it). YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

There's only two paragraphs of impact. The season article is rather short, as well. Should this one be merged? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and work on it soon. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it just needs a lot more info, which I'm not sure exists. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Already it's much better, and a merge is no longer needed. You're doing a good job so far, keep it up. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool. But I won't have much more time to work on it today. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Some future todo would be getting direct sources for the Gary Padgett report. Be sure to check relief web and dartmouth flood observatory for some possible info. Of course, a Google search will probably yield a lot of info. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Kammuri (2002)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Will review, comments to follow within the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, the article looks pretty good to me, seems well written and covers the main aspects. A few small comments and requests I made some copyedits and tweaks to prose, hopefully all are Ok. I'm not much of a meteorologist though, so I can't say much about the technical aspects. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and copyedit, looks great. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations. I'll pass this now. Good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• Some repetition of "deadly" here: " produced deadly flooding in the wake of a deadly flood season".
  • Changed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Kammuri killed 153 people, most of them related to the remnants" I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.
  • A storm's remnants is what's left after the circulation dissipates. Imagine a storm moving over land, and how all of its leftover moisture would cause flooding. That was the case here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• In the lead image caption, consider stating which body of land it was over at the time.
  • Good call! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Meteorological history

• "estimated peak 10 minute sustained winds" Should "10 minute" be hyphenated here?
  • Yea, you're right, my bad. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Shortly thereafter, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC)[nb 3] followed suit by initiating advisories on Tropical Depression 17W,[5] and the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) began issuing advisories early on August 3." Is there a good way around the repetition of "advisories" here?
  • Easy enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• "The remnants were absorbed by a cold front." Do you know when or where this happened?
  • The ref did not specify. ಠ_ಠ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Preparations, impact, and aftermath

• "Kammuri dropped heavy rainfall in Hong Kong that reached 280 mm (11 in) in Kwai Chung" Might want to note what "Kwai Chung" is, a town?
  • Good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Similarly, Shantou Waisha Airport was closed for four hours, causing 10 flights to be delayed or canceled.[2] Heavy damage was reported in three coastal cities.[2] Two small electrical dams were destroyed by the storm, causing additional flooding." Some repetition of "causing" here.
  • Tweakage. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'd suggest breaking the paragraph that begins "Neighboring Fujian Province to Guangdong" in two.
  • OK. I didn't think it was that long, but structurally it makes sense now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• "Widespread areas lost power or water, and two people were electrocuted in Shantou." Is there a connection between the two halves of the sentence?
  • Sort of implication about the power being related to the electrocutions, but I'll change it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• "14 reservoirs surpassed their capacity" This was in Hunan, right? Also, might want to avoid starting a sentence with a number like this.
  • Yea, gotcha. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
• Might want to note when the events of the last paragraph occurred.
  • Clarified it happened during the storm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

References

• Double check for names that need to be italicized. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Which ones would have to be? I'm sorry, I always get a little confused by the italicization. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GAR

Hi. I'm thinking about initiating a GAR on this article. There is no indication the references were checked for plagiarism, and the references were not verifiable. I am specifically talking about citations where there the format is "Title." Agency. Date. Accessdate is not a relevant field as there is no url to access. (There is no page number, no location, no author.) The sources are available outside Lexis Nexis, so that is no excuse to not link to them. As these articles appear to persistently be passed with out full citations, I am considering going back over older articles by the nominator and putting up all articles that lack full citations where the reviewer has not indicated a references check has been these references for plagiarism and factually accuracy. --LauraHale (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page. If you do indeed plan on doing such a review for other storms, may I suggest you contact the entire project, as we regularly do this, even on some featured articles (see Typhoon Chataan). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)