Login
Login

Talk:Typhoon Shanshan (2024)/GA1

GA review

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Typhoon Shanshan (2024)/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Shanshan (2024)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|HurricaneEdgar}} 05:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 03:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I figured I'd help with the backlog of GAN's.

;Lead

  • "Early the next day" - when the previous sentence has no mention of the date, it's more useful to reiterate the date rather than referring to "the next day". The next actual date reference is on the 27th, and the previous one was on the 20th. Not a big deal, just something to consider.
  • "Shanshan turned west-northwestward and stalled near Kikaijima" - that's a very specific island when you're saying a typhoon is "near" some place. You later say it moved through the Ryukyu Islands, so I suggest saying that the typhoon stalled while approaching the Ryukyus.
  • "As the typhoon moved through the Ryukyu Islands, it further decayed, becoming cooler and less defined." - why did it weaken? The met history doesn't say it either
  • "Shanshan's convection has slightly increased over the past six hours as its circulation moved back over open water and began progressing east-southeastward due to interaction with a mid-latitude trough." - this part is odd
  • " It then moved inland over Japan" - it's been near Japan the whole time. This is the only time you didn't specify an exact island (Honshu, presumably). Any reason?
  • "After Tropical Storm Maria and Typhoon Ampil impacted Japan, Shanshan arrived a few days later." - I get what you're going for, but it could be worded better
  • "maximum sustained wind gusts near 100 miles per hour (160 km/h)" - few things - there's no such thing as sustained wind gusts. A gust is an instantaneous burst of wind. So which one is this? Also, typhoon articles should have km/h and other metric units first, with imperial units in parenthesis. Lastly, you should abbreviate it to mph, and not spell it out.
  • "The JMA began issuing landslide and rockslide warnings in Kagoshima, Miyazaki, and Shizuoka prefectures. " - this isn't that interesting or important, compared to the storm's actual impacts.
  • The ref said that the damage was estimated between $6–10 billion. Do you have a more exact estimate or official total? [https://assets.aon.com/-/media/files/aon/reports/2024/aon-q3-2024-global-catastrophe-recap.pdf AON has $500 million], which is backed up by other sources saying the total was under a billion.

;Met history

  • "Shortly after, the depression intensified into a tropical storm and was named Shanshan by the JMA due to low vertical wind shear, warm sea surface temperatures, and high ocean heat content." - I take issue with the "due to". It wasn't named Shanshan due to the low vertical wind shear. Try for a bit of rewording.
  • "Around 12:00 UTC on August 22, the JMA upgraded it to a severe tropical storm, citing Dvorak technique" - the "citing Dvorak" part doesn't make sense. They use Dvorak technique anytime they derive intensity from satellite imagery
  • "Shanshan began developing poleward outflow into the west-northwest edge of a tropical upper tropospheric trough cell and then turned northward due to the interaction with an upper vortex" - not quite right. The TUTT enhanced the outflow. The part of it turning northward should be a separate sentence.
  • "The JMA reported that Shanshan reached its peak intensity at 15:00 UTC with 10-minute sustained winds of 175 km/h (110 mph) and a central pressure of 935 hPa (27.61 inHg),[25] before eventually peaking at Category 4-equivalent intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale with 1-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph)" - the JMA doesn't use 1-min winds or Saffir-Simpson winds. Is the second part JTWC?
  • "A study by Imperial College London suggests that Shanshan's extreme winds and heavy precipitation were strengthened by climate change." - doesn't seem that relevant to the article. The winds weren't particularly extreme, but if you wanted this could be saved for the impact section, as heavy precipitation definitely counts as impacts.
  • "This made Shanshan the strongest typhoon to strike Japan in decades and one of the most powerful storms to make landfall since 1960." - how strong was it at landfall? "One of the most powerful" could mean one of 20, or one of 2, so it depends how significant this is.
  • " a weak tropical depression with 25 km/h (16 mph) winds" - wrong intensity. It's 25 knots, not 25 km/h
  • Where was its final landfall?

;Preparations

  • Was anything canceled or postponed because of the typhoon, like sports games?

;Impact

  • [https://www.typhooncommittee.org/19IWS/docs/Members%20REport/Japan/19th_IWS%20NEW%20MEMBERS%20REPORT_Japan.pdf here is the official report from Japan], you should use that since some info is missing in the article
  • Some more spacing would be helpful. For example, split off the Ryukyu Islands from the rest of Kyushu, same with the South Korea part from the rest of Japan

In short, the article is pretty good, just some rough spots here and there, and some spots that I thought were under researched. Still, I think it's fixable. Lemme know if you have any questions about my review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)