Tropical Storm Kai-tak is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 at 04:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: 2017 tropical storm

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Mid‑importance 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. 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 Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Hi! I'm the nominator TheNuggeteer, I checked the article with the GA criteria, and only saw some minor problems probably landing the article on hold. Here is my mini-review, so you can relax yourself for a bit.

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Everything is okay, just needs a bit of a copyedit.

2. 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):

   Everything is good enough, but a large similarity to two sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good! Everything is okay, the article does not go too deep in a rabbit hole, and follows the major aspects.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Probably suspicious, but okay.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Don't see any in the history.

6. 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):

   A bit suspicious on the captions for image 3 and 4.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Putting this on hold. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a mini-review, not to be taken seriously, you can base off it if you like, but don't list the article yet. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed concerns. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Kai-tak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 04:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 15:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this for good article status. Right off the bat, there are some decent issues

• The lead should be two paragraphs ideally. Try expanding it to include more impacts.
• Round units where appropriate - " about 130 km (81 mi) "
• The meteorological history is incomplete. It only goes up to the JMA naming it.
• The "analysis" part doesn't need its own section, it's redundant with the met history
• As I mentioned on your talk page, be sure to convert units like "4.1–14 meters over in Samar"
• Similar to converting units, be sure to have both Philippine pesos and USD, and be consistent how you're presenting them. One time it's "Php3.747 billion" and another time it says "pesos"
• The preparations should be their own paragraph
• The impact should be organized by hierarchy of information. Both paragraphs mention storm deaths. But ideally that would be mentioned in the same paragraph.
• Are there any observations, like rainfall totals or wind speeds, from the storm?
• It's probably worth mentioning Typhoon Tembin somewhere in the aftermath, since that storm was just a few days later.
• I think you might've converted some things wrong, like with "400 km2 (150 sq mi)". The original source says "400-kilometer diameter" and "500-km diameter", not square kilometers, which would imply area, not just distance. Nom: Can't find anything else regarding the area in the convert template.
• You've accounted for a province breakdown for just 26 of the deaths - 23 in Biliran and 3 in Leyte. Where were the other 57 deaths?
• Any other examples of the infrastructure or agriculture damage? You say that's the source of the damage without going into much detail in this regard.
• "Power lines in 39 settlements toppled and some bridges fell to the ground." - these are two different ideas that could both be split up. First, power outages happen in a lot of storms, so that's good to have here, but was there a number of people affected by the power outages? How long until they were fixed? As for the bridges, that's some pretty decent infrastructure damage, so maybe specify which bridges, if you can find that. It could be useful to have the bridge collapses alongside any other damaged roads or infrastructure, like if any were washed out by landslides or floods.
• What do you mean in your note that the Typhoon Committee was "Idea originally made by China and Hong Kong."? Or did you mean the name was originally submitted by them? Nom: Yes, the latter.
• Did the Philippines provide any aid or other assistance in the aftermath? Nom: All the aid information provided here (at least that I know of) is created by the Philippines.

So the article is decent, it just needs a bit more. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an edit fixing some of the problems, anyway, in all the sources I see, they only mention deaths in Biliran and Leyte, which would probably fail the no original research criteria, and what does the second point mean? Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 22:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For also the third to the last point, I can't find any of that information. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Pinging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest rewriting the end of the meteorological history using either IBTRACS (which has the JMA and JTWC positions and intensities), or the advisory archive, using prognostic reasoning from JTWC to describe the storm's path, structure, and more in general about its meteorological history. Here's an example of where it falls short.

• "On December 20, during the storm, NASA's Aqua satellite took a picture of the tropical storm. The analysis showed that the strongest part of the storm was hovering over the South China Sea, with another part hovering over Palawan."

• That relies on NASA to tell the narrative of the storm, when it should just describe the storm narrative. Kai-tak moved across the Philippines. Why did it move the way it did? How strong was it at what time? IBTRACS has the time and date for both landfalls. The storm history should describe the storm's path and how strong it was. Like, why did it move southwestward toward Malaysia? The JTWC prognostic reasoning has that - it was due to a subtropical ridge and the general flow of the South China Sea. That sort of information needs to be in the article so it can be considered "good". So try integrating more stuff like "The storm turned due to the ridge", rather than "NASA reported". We'll be able to tell the information was from NASA, or whoever, based on the references, so it's not needed in prose, just a head's up.

• As for rounding units, I was pointing out that 81 mi isn't rounded. The 130 km is rounded, so the other unit should also be rounded.
• Speaking of units, everything should probably be in UTC time by default, but if you want to mention local time, it might be useful to use a note. Check out Hurricane Cindy (2005), which has a few instances of a note that indicates the local time. That is, if you need to indicate the exact time at all. Sometimes you don't need to.
• There's a few more unconverted damage totals. Would you mind adding a few more USD conversions?
• You say you couldn't find certain information, that's fine, but I wanted to check if you've searched for information from local sources? Also, have you looked through ReliefWeb, which has a list of 92 sources relating to the storm? Some of that might be able to help add information to the article.

I highly suggest you expand on the meteorological history, and add more from ReliefWeb, plus, a few local sources would be nice. I only started the review today, and you're already on the right track, so I don't think it should take more than seven days to do that, TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the Nasa problem, just needs checking. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Added 7 sources, the only thing to do is the Nasa problem checking. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Pinging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNuggeteer: Here is the link if you need to write or rewrite the meteorological history. HurricaneEdgar 03:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes about your edits, TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs).

• You're overly broad in a few areas that need some more detail. For example - "Over the following days, the storm made landfall over the South China Sea before dying out on December 23." This could and should be expanded significantly. First, identify where the storm made landfall. Also, you're missing a pretty significant part of Kai-tak's meteorological history, namely it reintensifying on December 20. Both JTWC and JMA have the storm reintensifying that day. What allowed the storm to reintensify then? And why did it get so weak as well? Check out Typhoon Imbudo for another tropical cyclone that hit the Philippines, and the sort of information that should be in the meteorological history. Right now, you have stuff like "had a rainfall rate of 7.59 inches per hour..", which belongs in the impact section. And again, you don't have the conversion for the units. For an article to be considered "good", it needs to have metric and imperial units. So in this case, inches should be converted to millimeters, which should go first, and the inches go second.
• Fix ref 23. Right now it has a URL in the ref.
• I think you might've converted some things wrong, like with "400 km2 (150 sq mi)". The original source says "400-kilometer diameter" and "500-km diameter", not square kilometers, which would imply area, not just distance. You converted this unit wrong, that's what I'm telling you. It should just be km, not km squared. That happens a few time.
• ''Residents were already advised to "undertake appropriate measures" - who said this? Could you rewrite it to avoid using those exact words, since I don't think those words are important enough to be an exact quote. You could also say "prepare" instead of that entire quote.
• I just wanted to check, did you get anything from ReliefWeb?
• Please add USD for "Php184 million" and " ₱1 billion". Also, please be consistent with how you identify Philippine currency totals.

The article is certainly on its way, but there are still a few issues left. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink I got 3 sources from ReliefWeb. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, I appreciate that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink Ref 23 seems okay. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 22:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, it looked kind of unusual for a title. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find the imperial equivalent of the "kilometer-diameter", is it okay to just have the original equivalent? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should convert kilometers to miles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the standard equivalents will be affective over different types, including diameters.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed everything, just needs checking.🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More notes.

• The first sentence should specify that the Visayas are in the Philippines

• Reply:  Done Changed to the Philippines instead.

• The met history is still very short. Why did the system barely move for three days between December 11 to 14th? (weak steering currents between a subtropical ridge over the western Pacific and another over the Bay of Bengal, plus another one to its south)

• Reply:  Done

• Did the storm structure change at all after its formation? There's nothing about Kai-tak reaching peak winds on the 14th. Be sure to mention the peak intensity. Did it start to become more organized then, I'm guessing?

• Reply:  Done Saw that the storm structure was already mentioned, did the other thing.

• But it still needs to mention the peak intensity. You can use IBTRACs for the JMA peak intensity (listed as Tokyo here). Also, what you have is incorrect. Kai-tak didn't reach peak winds "three hours later" after the 21:00 UTC when JTWC started advisories. Again, using IBTRACs, Kai-tak peaked at 12:00 on the 14th. You should mention the date. Also there's nothing about the storm structure at its peak. The last reference to the storm structure was "Despite the system being poorly organized with loose banding". Or for that matter, what was it like at landfall? Did the storm always remain poorly organized with loose banding? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The next day, the storm started moving towards Eastern Samar, then moved towards the other direction. The next day, the storm made landfall towards the Samar Island." - this doesn't make sense. Moved toward Samar, then the other direction, then it made landfall toward the island?

• Reply:  Done Needs checking though.

• Yea that works. I like using "meandered" or "drifted" in these cases, since JTWC had it making a loop, but JMA had it go east first, and then curve back to the west. You should also add the date for the Samar landfall, maybe something like "Over the next two days, Kai-tak meandered off the eastern coast, before making landfall on the island on December 16."

• The landfall on the 18th on Palawan island is missing. Right now it says "another part hovering over Palawan", which might count, but it should be clearer.

• Reply:  Done

• There should be a date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• " The storm later weakened and intensified on the same day." - this means nothing when "the same day" has no context. The last time you specified the date was the 13th, so please add a few more date references here. What I'm looking for is some mention of Kai-tak becoming a tropical storm again, which will also require mentioning when it weakened to a tropical depression, and when it weakened back to a tropical depression.

• Reply:  Done

• Not quite. There's nothing about when Kai-tak weakened to a depression, and when it became a tropical storm again. The met history really glosses over this part of the storm, so please expand more here, maybe add how it was able to reintensify? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink Kai tak did not weaken to a depression, but weakened 5-10 knots, is it broad enough? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai-tak weakened to a depression on the 16th, per IBTRACS, as well as this map from JMA, or Digital typhoon. So be sure to get that, plus it

Done. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• " On December 20, during the storm, analysis showed that the strongest part of the storm was hovering over the South China Sea, with another part hovering over Palawan because of a general flow of the South China Sea" - this is after December 23rd. The met history should be in chronological order. Also, "hover" is odd here, since the storm extends well into the atmosphere, so it's not really hovering. See the other part about the Palawan landfall.

• Reply:  Done Needs checking.

• Again, what do you mean with "hover"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Heavy rainfall was also predicted from a 400 km (250 mi)." - I think you're missing a word here. Also, rather than predictions, could you add some actual rainfall totals for the Philippines? I found this quickly which has some rainfall totals.

• Reply:  Done

• " Parts of the storm also were classified as "very cold" and supposedly also brang rainfall.[" - this should be cut. "Brang" isn't a word, the rainfall is already mentioned in the impacts, and I'm not sure what it means when part of a storm are classified as "Very cold".

• Reply:  Done

• "On December 18, NASA said that the storm was about 20 knots and had a rainfall rate of 192.786 millimetres (7.5900 in) per hour." - be consistent with the units. The infobox uses km/h and mph, not knots.

• Reply:  Done

• Effects in Malaysia are missing, such as flash floods and landslides.

• Reply:  Done To be clear, the report states Brunei, not Malaysia.

• Thanks, my mistake. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you organize the Philippines so you have a paragraph covering general impacts in the country, such as the overall deaths, damage total, overall houses damaged, number of people left homeless, whatever other nationwide statistics you can find. Right now the impact section still feels disorganized, so having that second impact paragraph split up into two would be useful, and the second paragraph could cover the information by individual areas. Also, should the number of evacuees be in the preparation paragraph or impact?

• Reply:  Done Needs checking.

• Yea only the third paragraph should be second. The death totals and damage totals are the important pieces of information, so that should come after preparations, but before the breakdown by area. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the source for the "Sofronio Dacillo" quote?

• Reply:  Done

• What is MSWD?

• Reply:  Done

• "A local Mormon church in Tanauan, Leyte donated supplies to students from Sacme, a local farming village" - why is this significant enough to be mentioned? The rest of the aftermath is pretty broad, not going into much detail about the aftermath in any one area, so this one stood out as unnecessary.

• Reply:  Done

• • On December 21, 2017, the PAGASA announced that the name Urduja had been retired from their naming lists after causing more than Php1 billion (US17 million) worth of damage, also never using it again as a typhoon name within the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR)." - could you improve the grammar in the last part? "also never using it again" feels odd.

• Reply:  Done Needs checking.

• You need to specify better about the note saying " Idea originally made by China and Hong Kong." Right now, that implies the Typhoon Committee was an idea made by China and Hong Kong. Given that Hong Kong is in China, I'm not sure the difference you're trying to make here, or what the note is trying to accomplish.

• Reply:  Done I actually meant the replacement name.

• Oh, that's still confusing then if you say "Idea". You should say "replacement name provided by China" or something. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's my review. I would ask that you don't strike out my comments, and instead reply to each comment. You can insert a new line underneath my comments and put <nowiki> :* to keep everything aligned. I included "Reply..." under the first point. I prefer it that way, because I noticed that you replied to some of my comments above, but they were struck out, so I didn't even notice you replied. You can just say "Done" if you want to address a comment, but again, I prefer a comment under each point. I emphasize that because I don't think the article can be classified as "good" yet, although it's on the way, and your edits are improving the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything (I think?). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still an unconverted instance of "400 kilometer ". Please add imperial units. But otherwise, just a few minor things left, which I replied to above. I really appreciate all of the work on the article. Apologies if I was a bit of a stickler, but it's making the article much better, and since the storm was retired, there should be some extra care and attention. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "On December 14, at approximately 12:00 UTC, Kai-tak reached its peak intensity, with 46 miles per hour (74 km/h) winds monitored from Tokyo." - this should be rounded, and km/h should be first. Also, please be consistent, use JMA, not "monitored from Tokyo".

• The rounding is inconsistent with the infobox. First, make sure metric units are first, and second, make sure the values are the same as the infobox. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you split MH into two paragraphs?

• A good place to split might be when it was named. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "From December 15-18, the storm made landfall in the Visayas archipelago, including the island of Palawan, later leaving the Philippines. On December 15, the storm later weakened and intensified. On December 16. the storm weakened into a tropical depression, then returned back on December 20." - I've pointed out several times that the dates need to be sequential. The part on the 15th - "the storm later weakened and intensified" doesn't seem accurate, since every warning center had it weakening that day. Please rewrite this section, taking the time to mention the Samar landfall first on the 16th, then the storm moving through the Visayas, then the Palawan landfall on the 18th. Also, it should be clearer that it reintensified back to a tropical storm. The "returned back" is ambiguous.

• "On December 15, the storm later weakened and intensified. " - this isn't true, it didn't intensify that day, which I said before. Also, you still haven't said that Kai-tak reintensified into a tropical storm. You say "the storm", which seems more like a generic name for Kai-tak than a tropical storm, but considering you have the part where it weakened to a TD, you need to say it became a TS again. Also, as I've asked a few times, what happened to allow for its restrengthening? Did convection redevelop after shear dropped? This part of the met history is lacking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "On December 20, during the storm, analysis showed that the strongest part of the storm was over the South China Sea, with another part drifting over Palawan because of a general flow of the South China Sea." - I'm still not really sure what this even means. Does the "general flow" refer to the storm's path? If so, you need to mention to be clearer. The storm turned southwestward on the 17th. Also, it sounds like the center split into two, but that's not the case - every warning center had a landfall on Palawan. So, maybe remove this section, or rewrite it with the previous part.
• I also noticed, ref 39 does not cover the information about Tembin's deaths. Please get a proper source for the 266 deaths.

• Please add a proper source for the 266 deaths. I didn't say get rid of that, just to get a better source, since Tembin's passage soon after is a pretty important part of Kai-tak's story. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So similar issues as with before. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything done except the paragraph one, what do you want on the two paragraphs? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not done though... you keep having a lot of the same issues as before, namely the peak intensity, and its restrengthening. Also, this seems wrong:

"Over the following days, the storm weakened and made landfall over the South China Sea." - you already mentioned the Palawan landfall, so I don't think this is right, that there were any more landfalls. It looks like the storm remained over water.

Also, check ref 5, it's broken.

So just to recap, there's still an issue with the JMA peak intensity (rounding/unit ordering/matching the infobox), the met history after the Philippines (namely it intensifying to a TS), and two issues with references. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]