Talk:Typhoon Ruth (1991)

Typhoon Ruth (1991) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 16, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 3 October 2024 by reviewer Tavantius (talk · contribs).

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tambayan Philippines: History Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Philippine history task force (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

Passed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Ruth (1991)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tavantius (talk · contribs) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 07:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to review this article. Components will be completed in order. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Image/Misc.

Images are fine, article stable Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig copyvio 11.5%, good to go but I'll check as I go through the article Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Not mentioned elsewhere in the article: "The thirty-first depression, twenty-second tropical storm, fifteenth typhoon, third super typhoon, and first violent typhoon of the 1991 Pacific typhoon season,"
"Northern Luzon" decapitalise "Northern"
Does Ruth dissipate on October 31 or November 3? Lede says 31st body says otherwise
MOS:NUM: 82 fatalities
This line feels out of place: "Overall, Typhoon Ruth inflicted approximately USD$150.7 million in damages." It would be better to be the concluding line for impact and effects.

Sourcing

Meteorological history

May I know how you derived all your information from the RSMC Best Track ref?
Para 1: source uses 25 kts which is 28.77 mph, not 30 mph
Para 2: "1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (65 km/h)", I cannot find this in the JTWC report so I assume it's in the IBTrACS ref. Could you show me where? Also, add a date for that moment so timeline is easier for readers to project.
Para 2: "Soon after, the typhoon crossed into the PAR", 23 October?
Para 3: "1-minute sustained winds of 160 mph"; 145 kts is 166.9 mph (am I reading the IBTrACS ref correctly?)
Link or explain mid-tropospheric trough for readers

"remnants of Ruth interacted with a frontal low prior to dissipating on October 3.", do you mean November?

Aside from me unable to interpret some of the sources, this section has remained faithful, so no issues, I'm pleased. However, there are opportunities for phrases to be in your own words to avoid close paraphrasing. I may encounter close paraphrasing in the next two sections by the looks of it. Please work on that.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I know how you derived all your information from the RSMC Best Track ref? Gladly, for something like this,^[1] the first number represents the date in Year-Month-Day-Hour format, I'm not sure what the second one's for, the third one is for what type of system it is,^[2] the fourth one is the system's minimum pressure, and the fifth one is for its winds. The next four are just either wind maxima or cone-related and don't matter.
Para 1: source uses 25 kts which is 28.77 mph, not 30 mph. For consistency with other good articles, I round the winds to the nearest multiple of five.
Para 2: "1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (65 km/h)", I cannot find this in the JTWC report so I assume it's in the IBTrACS ref. Could you show me where? Also, add a date for that moment so timeline is easier for readers to project. Fixed
Para 2: "Soon after, the typhoon crossed into the PAR", 23 October? Yep. Fixed
Para 3: "1-minute sustained winds of 160 mph"; 145 kts is 166.9 mph (am I reading the IBTrACS ref correctly?) Yes. That's just my mistake. Fixed
Link or explain mid-tropospheric trough for readers Done

"remnants of Ruth interacted with a frontal low prior to dissipating on October 3.", do you mean November?

Fixed

References

^ 90011306 002 3 97 1482 996 035 (00000 0000 90060 0060)
^ 2 means a tropical depression, 3 means a tropical storm, 4 means a severe tropical storm, 5 means a typhoon, and 6 means a extratropical or remnant low.

Tavantius (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations and impact

Use 13,660 per source instead of "13.6 thousand"
Deseret News ref title should be sentence case
We cannot be sure the family of 3 in Baguio is considered in the UPI ref
"Three people were injured due to falling trees, with heavy winds also causing the city to lose power.", are were still referring to Baguio? If so, switch orders with the line about 100 destroyed homes.
Can't find anything about the bus station and small hotel in the USAID ref.
The two individuals who were struck by flying debris died I suppose, so that should be added.
UPI ref in para 2 just needs to be used once at the end of the snapped power lines sentence.
The Hour said Manila's population is 8 million.

Alright this is part 1 of my review for this setion, I have para 3 left. But my meds are kicking so I'll continue the rest of the review after I get some shut eye. I noticed close paraphrasing is still a recurring problem here ... Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narvacan National Central High School website is WP:SPS, find a secondary source or omit
I cannot infer a relatonship between Mapanuepe Lake with the Marella and Santo Tomas rivers like the article writing implies. This late appears to be a feature of the Mapanuepe river from the source. Please clarify.
"More lahars were also seen in the Pasig-Potrero River, the river's highest since 1654." I believe 1654 is a timestamp not the year, also how high was it?
Forex ref is redundant, you may omit.
UPI also said Dagupan and Baguio were declared state of calamity. Is there a reason why they're left out?

Aftermath

Same USAID ref problem with verifiability

Prose/MOS

Close paraphrasing needs to be addressed immediately.
MOS:NUMNOTES: Avoid beginning a sentence with a figure. There's a few instances where a figure begins the sentence; either spell in full or reword.
Lead uses "13,600" but body went with "13.6 thousand"
The Kennon Road bit in Prep. and impact feels out of place, move it to where the article discusses Baguio city
"18.44 million yen (USD$137 thousand) of damage occurred due to a forest road and ten farm roads sustaining some damages", should be in active voice
"Later estimates", by who?
Did the Southern Cross sink near Taiwan, or elsewhere?
Abreviate Public Storm Warning Signals
"thirteen" → "13"
"The remnants of Ruth helped stimulate a frontal low which was stalling south of the Ryukyu Islands", this can be reduced
"also destroying many of the barns where the crop was processed." → "and many of the barns where the crop was processed."
"Trining" and "Julian" in parentheses unnecessary
"a person was hit by flying debris", and they died right?
Just link Basco to the respective article, omit Batanes from the blue font
"the system produced heavy rainfall, which peaked in Ohara, which received 152 mm" avoid repeting "which"
Why is it that the exact winds and pressure figures in infobox aren't mentioned in the body?
Krathon is linked in the body so omit the see also

POV/Coverage

Good. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Tavantius, I've completed my review. Please address the GA issues over the next 7 days. Feel free to let me know if you need more time or clarify my points. Thanks! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed all your issues. How's the article now? Tavantius (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You left out a few points but that's fine, I worked on it and did a little bit of copyediting. I'll go through the article again primarily for parphrasing or verbatim. That's the only thing left for this review. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrase: "passing through the Caroline Islands" > crossing the Caroline Islands
Repetition: "Intensifying steadily as it moved northwestward and tracked between Guam and Ulithi" > Intensifying steadily as it tracked northwestward through Guam and Ulithi
After the line about eye formation, the "September 23" suddenly appears, do you mean October?
"After tracking west-northwestwards across the Philippine Sea" phrase is too identical with source, reword
"having a diameter of 60 NM (110 km) as a result of this" > did the rapid weakening cause the eye to expand or it happened during this stage? I interpret the source with the latter definition.
"causing the latter to temporarily weaken and Ruth to recurve northwestward." > I'm not familiar with typhoons, so I understand it as: MTT weakened the SR which allowed Ruth to recurve? I think there should be a clear link Ruth interacting with the ridge affects its path towards Luzon.
"A deeper mid-tropospheric trough picked up Ruth, making it recurve south of Taiwan, causing it to exit the PAR on October 30." > copyediting probably needed
The OFDA report keeps linking me to FY1987, I also looked into FY 1991 and couldnt find anything about Ruth.
HKO source said Ruth destroyed over 100 homes, not hundreds of homes

The article is in better shape though there are some minor problems left Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all those issues, especially the OFDA report, which I changed the link so it should show you the section on Ruth. Tavantius (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] 90011306 002 3 97 1482 996 035 (00000 0000 90060 0060)

[2] 2 means a tropical depression, 3 means a tropical storm, 4 means a severe tropical storm, 5 means a typhoon, and 6 means a extratropical or remnant low.

[1]

[2]