Talk:Typhoon Surigae/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: JayTee32 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 21:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I remember this storm well, and recently had a GAN, I figured I would review this.

Just curious what you're using to cite Surigae being the strongest cyclone worldwide that year

I personally didn't add that detail but I think someone got that from the Tropical cyclones in 2021 page (which doesn't cite a source for Surigae being the most intense worldwide, as most of those pages don't unfortunately). There is this source where Surigae's minimum pressure is lower than any other storm worldwide in 2021, but I'm worried using it to say Surigae was the strongest overall may be WP:SYNTH. Removing for now. Jay Tee⛈️ 22:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The second named storm, first typhoon and first super typhoon of the 2021 Pacific typhoon season, Surigae originated from a low-pressure area south of the Micronesian island of Woleai that organized into a tropical depression on April 12" - that's a really long sentence, especially because you're specifying which Micronesian island it was near.

Cut it down. Jay Tee⛈️ 23:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"and was named Surigae by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA)" - could you pipe link tropical cyclone naming here when you mention the storm being named?
- Linked —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"1-minute sustained winds of 315 km/h (196 mph)" - why isn't the mph rounded?
- Rounded —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"This made it the strongest pre-May typhoon on record." - this duplicates the beginning of the first lead paragraph, in the same paragraph. I suggest simplifying the met history so it's only one paragraph in the lead. Starting the second lead paragraph with "Afterward" doesn't work too well for flow, since you might have to go back to see what it's after. Considering the size of the article, I think a two paragraph lead is fine.

Merged two paragraphs, will trim first one. Jay Tee⛈️ 23:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The subtropical system subsequently underwent extratropical transition, which it completed by April 24." - why does the infobox say April 25 then?
- Corrected date —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should link US dollar somewhere in the lead, or leave a note when you mention the first damage total.
- US dollar already linked. —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could expand on the Philippines impact in the lead a bit more.

Added detail to second lead paragraph. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"On April 17, the JMA determined that Surigae's barometric pressure had rapidly fallen to 895 hPa (mbar; 26.43 inHg), as the storm reached its peak intensity." - on what basis? The average reader might be curious how an official agency determines a storm's strength.

To be honest I'm not sure what to link or add there, any suggestions? Jay Tee⛈️ 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise good job writing up the Met history
" In Palau, 350 people were sheltered, as 18 public schools were open as storm shelters" - could you rewrite it so it doesn't say "shelter" twice?
- Rewrote sentence. —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
" ₱1.5 billion (US$31.05 million) worth of standby funds were prepared for disaster response." - in general, you should avoid a sentence if it starts with a number or a symbol, which could be confusing in this case if someone isn't a native English reader. Not a necessity to fix, just something I noticed.

Adjusted. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"There was criticism for the lack of news coverage on the typhoon in Palau most notably." - notably what?!

I removed this sentence as I felt making such a broad claim of criticism with only one source wasn't warranted. Also removed unnecessary repetitive citations. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"; the search continues for another missing seven crew members" - continues... into 2025? This needs to be fixed.

Removed statement pending future research on whereabouts of those crew members. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"around 345 km (214 mi) to" - round the second unit
- Rounded —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Widespread rainfall totals of up to 8–12 inches (200–300 mm) " - make sure units are in metric first, not imperial. It happened elsewhere
- Flipped units —JCMLuis 💬 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any update or clarification about the missing people? Surely they would've been declared dead by now. Check PAGASA year-end summaries, or WMO reports.

The 2021 PAGASA summary has 9 dead and no one missing, and doesn't mention the LCU Cebu Great Ocean. I didn't find a WMO report on the storm. The Typhoon Committee report on 2021 is also silent on the issue. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any impacts in Alaska?

Nothing from my informal Google research. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, the article is pretty good! Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink all points have been addressed or responded to. Jay Tee⛈️ 00:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this sentence at Meteorological History is unsourced:

Afterward, Surigae's remnant continued moving eastward while gradually weakening, turning northeastward on May 1. On May 2, Surigae's remnant was absorbed into another extratropical cyclone, just south of the Alaskan Panhandle. RFNirmala (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]