Jump to content

Talk:Tropical Storm Lucille/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cyclonebiskit. I will be reviewing Tropical Storm Lucille. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Meteorological history

[edit]

Preparations and impact

[edit]
  • "The gusts on Chichi-jima caused the USS Cayuga County broach in the harbor." You are missing a 'to' between 'County' and 'broach.'
  • Although I can see how the earthquake may have played a role in the damage caused by Lucille, since it's not mentioned elsewhere in the impact section, I would remove it. Yes, 32 people were killed, but there's no connection between earthquake and tropical cyclone elsewhere in the article.
  • "Across the northern Philippines, torrential rains associated with the secondary low, Lucille, and a subsequent southwesterly monsoon caused extensive flooding." In the comma listing I would put Lucille first and then the secondary low. Though both ways feature 'the secondary low' next to Lucille, I think this would lessen confusion slightly - "Across the northern Philippines, torrential rains associated with Lucille, the secondary low, and a subsequent southwesterly monsoon caused extensive flooding."
  • "During a 24 hour span..." Insert a hyphen ( - ) between 24 and hour.

Script Checks

[edit]
  • Id like to know why you think a non-listing on NOAA's FAQ means there is uncertainty as to whether or not the name was truly retired, when you have the Typhoon Committee (ie the ones who are in charge of naming in this region) telling you that it is retired.Jason Rees (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • NOAA is an official agency as well. Technically the report being used for the retired names is not from the Typhoon Committee, it's from the China Meteorological Administration so it falls under the same category as NOAA. I'd rather not give certainty in its retirement with the sources available. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]