Talk:Tropical Storm Tess

Tropical Storm Tess 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: April 20, 2017. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Tess (1988)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Comments to come... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EASTER, avoid the Easter egg pipelink in the first line.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"within the general proximity of" - why not just "near"?
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following an increase in organization, the disturbance was designated on November 3. - designated what?
- Added TC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
a remote island geographically isolated - doesn't "remote" already sort of imply geographic isolation?
- Good call. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"via" is an odd word choice in this instance.
- I use it all the time, but changed to "due to". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:EUPHEMISM, don't use "passed away".
- I don't think "passed away" is biased, but the MOS disagrees, so changed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
JTWC first classified - no need for "first".
- Agreed in this context, and removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Almost immediately after the upgrades, the storm's track shifted from southwestward to westward in response to a trough weakening to the north, which also promoted increased upper level outflow and decreased wind shear due to a thinner pressure gradient between the trough and a nearby ridge, starting on November 4. - you need to explain this in more simple terms. I'm usually pretty good with synoptics, and I got well and truly tripped up here.
- Cut the bits about increased upper level outflow out after looking at the JTWC's wording "Almost immediately after the first warning, the track became westward. The most probable explanation for this change appeared in the low-level northeasterly gradient flow. The pressure gradient between the winter high and the lower pressure associated with Tess had sustained a persistent flow of at least 30 kt (15 m/stX) ups~am of the tropical cyclone since 1 November. This upstream pressure gradient relaxed on 4 November and the gales clustered around Tess." Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This decreased shear promoted intensification. - I think "allowed" might be more accurate than "promoted".
- Does "led to" work? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
the JTWC [...] was given the name Tess
- Rewrote. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
the JTWC estimates - tense.
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
its peka intentness - that's a new one. :)
- Words and phrases are invented every day. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
intensity estimates [...] was still a severe tropical storm
- Better? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
town of Rizal was the hardest hit, where 23 fatalities happened. - Dangling modifier (or something?), and "happened" is crude.
- Split into two sentences, though it doesn't flow well and changed "happened" to "occurred". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
75 were confirmed to have been killed on November 10 - they died before November 10, presumably.
- Probably, but on November 10, there was an abrupt increase in the death count in press reports, likely due to poor communications, but I don't really wanna make any assumptions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Laguna Lake sentence is a run-on.
- Split up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One person was injured. - I'm having a super hard time believing that with nearly 700 deaths and a similar number destitute, only a single person was non-fatally injured.
- That's literally what the NDCC has reported and press reports seem to avoid the mention of injuries altogether (I just did a quick search for [typhoon tess 1988 injured] and got as many results as snow this year- zero). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"accumulated" is not the right word.
- Meh, changed to cost. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've done your due diligence, but you know I have to ask: isn't there any more Vietnam info out there?
- I don't think so, but let me search by looking at some other GA's not done by me, and looking at their sources, if possible. I'm not really familiar with Vietnam sources; the one time I looked it was for a different storm in 1983 and didn't turn anything up. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - EMDAT has 101 dead and 93k affected. Not sure what the later means exactly in EMDAT's context, and the I don't trust its death tolls over the HKO in this instance (seems odd it would shoot up from 37 to 101 somehow given the HKO report is done the following year and doesn't mention any missing people, plus the HKO is the best with impact in this area, at least compared to press reports, so I trust it more than say the NHC with impact. Otherwise, nothing else. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 07:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some editing is needed, but it's got a strong foundation. On-hold for now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JC. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, looking a lot better. I made a couple minor edits to smooth out the new additions. My only complaint at this point is that I really think you should remove the one injury statistic, unless you have reliable sources aside from one database. It's just too strongly at odds with everything else we know about the disaster. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]