Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Berguitta/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 September 2021 [1].

Cyclone Berguitta[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This tropical cyclone went mostly under the radar when it existed in January 2018, but it caused significant impacts in Mauritius and Réunion. It was part of an exhausting cyclone season for Réunion, where they were hit by five cyclones (Ava, Berguitta, Dumazile, Eliakim, and Fakir) in four months. This article relies quite a lot on local media (mostly in French) as many English news outlets failed to pick up on this system. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Horsesizedduck[edit]

The lead is quite large, wouldn't you say? I will see about improving it. Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a more complete impression, the article actually appears stunning. No doubt there's FA in here. There may just be some copyedit work to be done. Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are freely licensed. Vaticidalprophet 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • The third tropical system and first Intense Tropical Cyclone ITC shouldnt be capitalized.
  • west-southwest on 16 January --> west-southwestward
  • three-quarters non-breaking space needed
  • the surrounding environment became generally conducive to strengthening. How so?
    • Elaborated. I recall leaving this out earlier to avoid complicating things early on, but I guess a little extra detail can't hurt. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 957 tonnes convert to short tons
    • Done along with the two other instances I used tonnes. I had to change "tonnes" to "metric tons" though, since for some reason the convert template refuses to spell out tonnes in full. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support. Third comment in a row from a H user name!

  • "A quarter of the island's average annual rainfall fell during those three days" - can you avoid the "rainfall fell" construction?
  • "In the aftermath of the storm, the government gave payouts to around 13,000 residents affected by the storm, but delays in the payments and public sentiment that deemed payments insufficient resulted in protests. The destruction of crops on the island led to a shortage of vegetables. The Prime Minister's Office resorted to calling on the public and private sectors to contribute to the Prime Minister's Cyclone Relief Fund to fund the costs of reconstruction. More protests ensued several months later when families were evicted from evacuation centres before receiving houses that the government had promised them." - can this be summarized a bit? I agree with the above that the lead is fairly long.
    • I cut some of the details. I've also reworded some other parts of the lead in an attempt to shorten it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest adding the peak rainfall to the lead, that's important.
    • I added the 24-hour and 8-day totals from Réunion, since those broke records. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flooding occurred in many parts of the island, helped by a high water table after rains from Cyclone Ava earlier in the month. " - not sure "helped" is the right word here
  • "However, this too was seen as grossly insufficient" - "grossly" seems a bit biased and unnecessary.
  • "about 90 km (56 mi) " - if the first unit is rounded, the second should be as well
    • Thanks for pointing that out, I went ahead and fixed some other similar instances. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article, and I would be happy to support its candidacy with some minor tweaks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: should be done. Let me know if you have more feedback (on the lead, or otherwise). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, great work on this! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert review.

  • I agree with Horsesizedduck that the lede is quite long. I would suggest trimming this a little bit. However, two cyclone experts with lots of FA experience support this article already, so I won't factor this into my assessment. However, I can offer some suggestions of trimming if you want.
  • "However, decreasing oceanic heat content as Berguitta tracked further south caused the cyclone's cloud pattern to lose organisation." awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "As Berguitta tracked further south, decreasing oceanic heat content caused the cyclone's cloud pattern to lose organisation."
  • "A 108 km/h (67 mph) wind gust was recorded in Patate-Théophile, and a gust to 102 km/h (63 mph) was observed in Pointe-Canon." Where are these places relative to the Rodrigues island?
  • The "Mauritius Island" and "Effects in Réunion" sections are quite large. Is there a way to split these sections using more level 3 headings? Perhaps adding a "Aftermath" section to Mauritius and including "Effects" and "Aftermath" headings in Reunion?

Those are my thoughts. I did not notice issues upon a glance at the references. Please ping when you respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: your suggestions for cutting down the lead would be greatly appreciated, I've hit some sort of roadblock in deciding what info is necessary for the lead and what isn't. I believe I've addressed the rest of your pointers. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions on where to cut in the lede:

  • "Intense Tropical Cyclone Berguitta was a strong tropical cyclone that caused catastrophic flooding in Mauritius and Réunion in January 2018." Delete strong, delete catastrophic. Its destruction is going to be outlined later in the lede.
  • "The remnants of Berguitta later transitioned " Delete later
  • "In Mauritius, Berguitta first brought heavy rains and gusty winds to Rodrigues from 13 to 15 January." Delete first
  • The second and third paragraphs need a major trim. These should highlight the most notable damage on the islands, the cleanup effort, and the aftermath, all in about 4-6 sentences. I'll give some examples of sentences that I think can be deleted below, and why
  • "Roads and power lines were damaged by dislodged trees." This feels pretty common in major weather events, so I don't think is needed here.
  • "After affecting Rodrigues," Delete, redundant.
  • "Cyclone warnings were issued and evacuation centres opened before Berguitta hit, while public amenities, schools, and workplaces were closed." This feels common for major weather events like cyclones, so I think it can be deleted.
  • "Numerous rescues were carried out as people attempted to escape rising floodwaters." I think this common in this situation, so can be deleted.
  • "The destruction of crops on the island led to a shortage of vegetables." I think this is self-evident, considering that you already mentioned that 3/4 of the island's crops were destroyed earlier in the paragraph.
  • "The Prime Minister's Office had to call on the public and private sectors to help fund the costs of reconstruction." This requires further detail to explain why this is notable, so I think it can be deleted.
  • "Initial cyclone warnings were issued on 15 January and escalated in severity on 17 January, after which evacuation centres were opened. The island's main airport was closed for a day and several airlines altered their flight schedules. Other public facilities were closed as early as 16 January." I think this is all common for a cyclone and not important for the lede, so it can be deleted.

After the above are addressed, I will take a look at the edited lede and see if anything else can be eliminated. Feel free to disagree or modify my suggestions in the prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've implemented the recommended amendments as they all make sense. I've trimmed some other excessive wording here and there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more places to trim:

  • "It slowly organised amid a favourable environment as it moved southwards," Either describe what made the environment favourable, or delete.
  • "A weakening trend commenced as Berguitta began crawling west-southwestwards on 16 January" -> "Berguitta weakened as it crawled west-southwest on 16 January"?
  • "Roads and power lines were damaged by dislodged trees." I think this can be deleted, as this is expected in a cyclone so not as notable to mention here.
  • " It maintained its intensity as it accelerated southwestwards" -> "It continued" I don't think we need to say that it maintained its intensity, as we just said it became a tropical storm, so I think the reader will assume that it remaining a tropical storm during this time.
  • "19 January as environmental conditions became more hostile." -> Became more hostile to the storm?
    • Yeah - I just removed this in the same spirit as the first point. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dissipated over the open Indian Ocean" Delete open.

I think the lede is almost ready. Z1720 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede looks a lot better. I think you can consider removing the sentence from the second paragraph about the two deaths, and the one in the third about the lost person, but this will not prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • I'm noticing discrepancies in how "certain" numbers are. For example, in the lead we see "around" 6,800 households without power in Mauritius and 100,000 customers in Réunion; in the text though the former number is exact but the latter is "up to". Are these numbers reported with certainty in the sources, or are they not?
    • For the former, the source states (roughly) "6,800 were without power yesterday morning". It looks rounded to me, but to avoid ambiguity I'll change the lead to "A total of 6,800 households" instead. For the latter, the source has "almost 100,000 were affected by power outages", so the part in the body is correct and I've put "nearly" in the lead. I fixed another instance of this regarding the number of people registering for payouts from the Mauritian government. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes exchangerates.org.uk a high-quality reliable source? Zinfos?
    • Zinfos lists their journalists here. They seem decently well-established and (if they are to be believed) they're the most-viewed news site in Réunion. For the one article of theirs I'm citing, they republish the government document they base their claims off. There is some political commentary in that article but it's not relevant to the content I'm using it to support, which is just the existence of the project to bridge the river. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For exchangerates.org.uk, they say that they've been around since 2005 and are one of the UK's most-used sites to view exchange rates, but I haven't really found anything to back that up. I'm considering switching to something like XE, which is ranked more favorably and much more popular. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN51: author name is misspelled
  • Imaz Press Réunion links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their website seems to be blocking foreign IPs. I've added Wayback Machine links to all 17 refs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note now credits IMF but links to World Bank - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data originates from the IMF but is published by the World Bank. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we provide a full citation clarifying the provenance of the data? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment from Chidgk1[edit]

Would "flooded" be better than "caused flooding in" or too much like a newspaper?

Consider translating the source titles in "trans-title" parameters.

Consider using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:To_USD_round for exchange rates

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template recommendation – I had no idea that existed! It looks quite useful and I'll try and incorporate that into the article. For your first comment, "flooded" would seem to imply that it submerged the entire island as opposed to "caused flooding in", which is why I'm reluctant to use that wording. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • There's no reason to cite just one claim in the lead. That factoid should be in the main body of the article so can be cited there.
  • What is "disturbed weather"?
  • Is there a map of the overall region so this can be contextualised for those who don't know where Mauritius/Reunion are located?
  • "crawled" odd phrasing for a storm.
  • "several days, stranding several" repetitive.
  • " total of 6,800" exactly? Probably better as "At least 6,800"
    • This was brought up above by Nikkimaria. The source just states "6,800"; I would assume it's rounded but prefer to play it safe. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to protests. More protests" repetitive.
  • "A person" -> "One person"
  • "100,000 customers" people.
  • You've linked rupee and dollar, so link €.
  • "and Fakir in" is unnecessarily piped to a redirect.
  • " Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre " Specialized (as this appears to be in USENG)
  • Shouldn't levelled be leveled if we're doing USENG?
  • "eastern eyewall" what's that?
    • The ring of thunderstorms surrounding the system's eye. I'd link eyewall but it redirects to eye (cyclone) which is already linked in the previous paragraph. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "midlatitudes"?
  • "cyclones Hollanda and Dina" when did they happen?
  • a car crash on -> road traffic accident.
  • "from Cyclone Ava earlier" overlinked.
  • earlier: "Rodrigues'" -> "Rodrigues's"
  • "Another €300,000 ... Another €600,000" repetitive.
  • "when Cyclone Fakir" see above, piped to a redirect.
  • Note 1 has an inline external link, should be a reference.
  • Note 2: specialized.
  • Several ref titles feature OVERCAPITALISATION.
  • Several spaced hyphens in ref titles/ext links, should be en-dashes.
  • Several refs are archived, several are not, what's the approach?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi KN2731, have you addressed all of TRM's comments yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Gog the Mild, I believe I've addressed everything except the comments I have some issue with, which I've replied to above. I should have made it clearer, sorry about that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Give TRM a ping, so they can add it to their list to revisit. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KN2731, ping TRM. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, didn't see the message - I'm still in camp. @The Rambling Man: ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good for me, so I'm content to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are there more concerns with the nomination? I saw on my watchlist that it had been promoted earlier and then that was later reverted. NoahTalk 13:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, well yes and no. I ran through it today, decided it was fine to promote, did so and then realised that I had requested a spot check at Requests two days ago. D'oh! It was incorrectly promoted for four minutes, for which apologies. Fancy spot checking the sourcing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks[edit]

  • FN5: Backs up all claims.
  • FN27: Claim backed up.
  • FN47: Claim backed up.
  • FN64: Claim backed up.
  • FN76: Claim backed up.
  • FN83: Claim backed up.
  • FN99: Claim backed up.
  • FN111: Claim backed up.
  • FN130: Claim backed up.
  • FN142: Claim backed up.
@Gog the Mild: I briefly checked over 10 sources and was easily able to find support for the claims that were being made. NoahTalk 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cyclone_Berguitta/archive1&oldid=1043024676"