This article is about a powerful and damaging typhoon over 10 years ago. Its FAC failed last summer because I was too busy, and there weren't enough comments, so I'm trying again. Other hurricane editors agree it's likely the best source of information for this particular typhoon, which I believe is one of the most important criteria for an FAC. Hope you still enjoy the article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shame it didn't pass last July. Prose looks fine. I haven't done a source or image review. A few comments:
Inconsistent date format used for retrieval dates in references. I'm not sure if the date format here needs to match what is in the body of the article, but at least internal consistency here is needed.
Thanks, it should be consistent now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It puzzled me a bit when reading the lead why Phillippines's name is mentioned. No other reference to it in the lead. But I think explaining it makes too much of a deal out of it for a storm that didn't even get there.
The presence of the Philippine name is admittedly a comprise within the project on PAGASA's naming scheme. They apply their own names to storms within their AoR, regardless of whether or not an official international name has been given. People in the Philippines, who largely speak English as a primary or secondary language, know the storm primarily by the PAGASA name. To avoid confusion we've opted to include the local designation upfront but put very little emphasis on it elsewhere as the international name is the most recognized one. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source for the rainfall table as a whole? Just in case there is another storm ranking higher.
Sadly no. It's a table that's based on the List of wettest tropical cyclones by country. It's annoying when lists don't exist for such a question as "what are the wettest storms to affect Japan", especially when we have sources to back up such a list. If you have objection to its inclusion, I'll remove it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the category "2005 disasters in the Philippines" applies. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all clear, will give a prose review when I have time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Cyclonebiskit
Prose/content
General comments
References need reformatting for consistency, Auree's guide should be more than enough to help you with this.
Made copyedits here and there. Please double check these to make sure I didn't inadvertently introduce errors.
Lede
Brief summary on preparations is needed
Added more about Japan, since that was the most important bit of preps. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Brief summary on aftermath is needed
Added disaster declaration and some Japan stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After affecting Japan, the typhoon dropped the equivalent of the monthly precipitation in the Kuril Islands of Russia, causing road damage there. – This implies the damage was caused by rain, but in the body of the article the damage is stated to be from high waves.
Changed to - After affecting Japan, the typhoon dropped the equivalent of the monthly precipitation in the Kuril Islands of Russia, while also causing road damage due to high waves. Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorological history
When did the JMA classify it as a tropical depression?
I tried something for this article. Since JMA is the official RSMC, we should treat whatever they say as official, meaning we don't need to give too much extra explanation, IMO. I wrote - At 00:00 UTC on August 29, a tropical depression formed from the system, which is when the JMA classified it, but if you feel I should emphasize that it was the JMA, I can do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add the meaning of "Nabi" as a note (provided in GP summary)? (ex: Typhoon Longwang)
On September 5, Nabi passed near Minamidaitōjima and Yakushima. – Some geographic context would be useful here; "Ryukyu Islands of Japan", or something to that effect
Since people might not know Ryukyu either, I said part of the Daitō and Ōsumi island groups offshore southern Japan. Does that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
JMA track has it passing directly over Kuchinoerabu-jima between 18:00 and 21:00 UTC on September 5, might be worth noting this.
I don't think it's worth mentioning this small island of only a few hundred people, considering it's only inferred by the track, and the annual summary - [2] - didn't mention it. I'll still add it if you want, but I don't want to bloat the MH too much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Landfall in Kyushu is incorrect, and there were actually multiple landfalls (per JMA best track)
They also specify a landfall in Hokkaido at 04:00 UTC on September 8
Talked about this off-wiki. There are conflicts in the sources, and we'll resolve this later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I had it backwards...the linked file is in local Japan time (UTC +9), the times I listed are the converted ones via the best track. The landfall in Isahaya is explicitly stated so you should definitely add that; however, they don't explicitly state a landfall in Izumi, they merely refer to it as "passed through the vicinity of Amakusa-shimoshima, Kumamoto Prefecture" at 04 UTC. The issue here is that the track clearly shows a brief period over land during this time which constitutes a landfall but the summary text doesn't jive properly... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The storm left over 270,000 residences without power, mostly near Kagoshima on Kyushu. – Does this refer to Kagoshima (the city) or Kagoshima Prefecture? Near the city would make sense, but it would have to be "in" the prefecture if that's the case.
Damn, this is when I wish I had that Bloomberg source. I can't find it online - the closest I found said 8,800 houses without power. As I can't find it, and I'm not sure whether it was city or the prefecture, I removed the last bit, as it doesn't add terribly much. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Torrential rains, falling at rates 228.6 mm (9 in) per hour or more, caused flooding and landslides throughout the country. – Redundant to the previous paragraph, though the hourly rainfall rate is different.
This rainfall rate was for Tokyo, so I moved it to the previous paragraph (and added where it was recorded). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph in the Japan section should be reworked so you don't have to constantly specify the locations are in Kyushu.
I moved some info around, it should be clearer now that it refers to Kyushu, and I think it has a better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any information on effects in Hokkaido?
Same basic impacts. I added a bit more though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
Closed markets and decreased supplies caused the price of beef to reach record levels in the country following the typhoon. Following the storm... – "following the typhoon. Following the storm"
Overall issues are relatively minor, nice work. Once these are handled, I'll be happy to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the timely review! I've been a bit busy IRL, so I'm very thankful this FAC wasn't closed. I'm more active on Wiki now, so I'll be addressing any other comments in a timely manner (as well as reviewing other FAC's). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns have been addressed and as such I'm happy to support this nomination. Excellent work Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
References #17, 23, 26, 27 and 63 are dead per [3]. Titoxd(?!?) 20:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ref #17 wasn't broken, but it wasn't working with the plain url. Adding www fixed that. As ref #23 is no longer available, I converted it to a plain Cite news template and removed the URL. Ditto the other Bloomberg references. I fixed ref #63. Thanks for checking the references :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went through a few minor things with Hurricanehink offline including pointing out where he was lacking a reference and the retriement of the name. As a result I am happy to support.Jason Rees (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It sucks when an FAC times out...anyway, taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed. Thanks for checking it out :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...was a powerful typhoon that struck Japan in September 2005. - worthwhile saying it was southwestern Japan (or otherwise noting something similar) here?
Sure, I put it at the end and added that the name was retired. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After affecting Japan, the typhoon dropped the equivalent of the monthly precipitation in the Kuril Islands of Russia - this would sound more significant if you added the time period at the end.
At 00:00 UTC on August 29.. - why not say "At midnight (00:00) UTC on August 29" - which strikes me as more accessible, ditto adding "midday" a bit further along?
For science articles, we use UTC and not informal terms like "midnight", as midnight depends on your local time, whereas UTC is the standard timekeeping for the entire world. Should I make this clearer in the article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, not convinced, but as it's a stylistic issue it's not a deal-breaker. If it were me I would but I am not gonna make a big deal about it. Anyway looks good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise looks ok on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Does any of this have to be changed? Namely several ref titles in sentence case not title case ? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, where possible we try to make the footnotes look as uniform as possible, and I noticed a few were different. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, I had never done it that way before. I'm happy to do that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 20:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
