Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Sri Lanka cyclone/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 [1].

2003 Sri Lanka cyclone

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a damaging and deadly flood in Sri Lanka, a small island southeast of India. That is the main focus, but the storm also had larger reaching effects, such as potentially contributing to a deadly heat wave that killed 1,900 people. It serves as a great source for flooding damage in a tropical island country, and I am sure it meets all of the FA criteria. It had a previous FAC, where an editor did a useful copyedit (as well as provide some comments that I addressed). This is also an article for a basin that only has two other featured articles, so it would be useful as far as diversity goes to have another FA there, especially in such a deadly basin. Hope you enjoy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata comments

The "Aftermath" section bothers me a bit in the way in which it pieces together news sources rather than from sources that are reliable after-the-fact overviews. This could be causing accuracy problems. The article says: "Collectively, the governments of Norway, United Kingdom, United States, and Australia pledged or donated $1.46 million to Sri Lanka." You've arrived at that figure by adding up four different figures in this source. Is the figure in US dollars? And surely it wasn't done collectively; the article makes it quite clear the four governments operated separately. Later, we are told that "Both Canada and Australia sent about $100,000 to the local Red Cross in their respective currencies". The Australian aspect of the sentence is sourced to here. Are we sure this is not the same $100,000 (AUS) as the $65,000 (US?) mentioned earlier? If so, why the repetition? The press release says that the $100,000 was "immediate flood relief" so I suspect it is the same money. But I don't know. The problem is piecing sources together; we need an overview source. Then, in the following phrase, "and the latter country [Australia] worked to rebuild the damaged schools". That's an understatement. The country didn't "work"; according to the source, it gave A$400,000. Without mentioning that figure, the earlier figures of $100,000/$65,000 look stingy. the source also says the money was for "rebuilding of basic social services, including schools", so it was not at all limited to schools. Anyway, this is all to illustrate a broader point: that I'm not sure the use of sources is appropriate and it is liable to lead to inaccuracies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eek. Regarding the adding them together, is "cumulatively" better? Regarding the dual usages of Australia, I apologize, I mistakenly included them twice, thanks. I found a better source that had all of the donations in the end, so I used that instead. Good call forcing me to get that :) I clarified that Australia sent money to UNICEF to service. Hopefully you think the aftermath is in better shape now. I don't believe there are any more inaccuracies in the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the sporadic way in which I'm making mycomments. The overall view to which I'm inclined at the moment is as follows: that the section on the cyclone is quite strong, but the sections on its impacts are less so. As the following comments suggest, which concern only the section on the flooding in Sri Lanka, I think there are problems with accurate representation of sources as well as some prose glitches. Prose we can fix in a week or so across the article; the sourcing I'm less confident about, especially given that I'm just sampling sections at this stage:

The problem with the sourcing is that the storm wasn't named. It is very easy to look up information on Hurricane Sandy and find exactly what you're looking for. Not only was the storm not named, it was also a flood event in a non-western country, which makes sourcing even more difficult. I did the best I could to include as much as possible on the storm, but since the primary effects were flooding (which can theoretically happen at any time worldwide with enough rainfall, especially in the tropics), there isn't necessarily a definitive endpoint for the aftermath. It's not an article on Flooding in Sri Lanka, it's about one particular storm. Given that ReliefWeb collected all of these stories related to this event, I rely heavily on them. Hope that makes a little more sense. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"After the floods largely subsided, the World Socialist Web Site criticized the Sri Lankan government for not having better disaster management in place, as well as noting that deforestation and gem mining contributed to the landslides." - what makes the World Socialist Web Site a source worthy of inclusion in this article? I would have thought the views of the Red Cross, which are already there, are reliable and sufficient.

Per World Socialist Web Site, it is "the most widely accessed international socialist news site in the world", and they came third in the nearest elections to the elections. I wanted to include view points outside of the Red Cross and news organizations, and I happened to come across the source. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The National Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting anticipated the flood event three days in advance, and the first flood warnings were issued on May 17." This sentence, with its second clause in the passive voice, implies that the NCMRWF issued the flood warnings, which is surely not true. It might also help to note in the sentence that the NCMRWF is an Indian organisation; if the reader doesn't follow the wikilink they will assume it is Sri Lankan.

I believe I clarified that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Schools and public buildings were used as emergency shelters, and about 8,000 people evacuated on May 18." - the and just doesn't work here.

I rejiggered the sentence to - About 8,000 people evacuated on May 18, utilizing schools and public buildings as emergency shelters. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the death figures in Ratnapura is contemporaneous and very much subject-to-change ("The death toll so far is 256," said Karu Jayasuriya, head the government's disaster management team). I don't think we can rely on it to give solid and unqualified figures ("125 people died in Ratnapura.")

That source also had the final death toll, so the 125 in Ratnapura sounds legit. I'll add "at least" before "125" if you want, though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I changed it to "at least" to be on the safe side. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"representing an estimated 20–30% loss for the year." - The source says that the loss is in low-grown tea crops. Dilmah tells us that low-grown tea is only one of Sri Lanka's three types of tea crop. So I don't think we can say there was a 20-30% loss of tea crop generally.

Clarified the area. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Farmers in the region also lost some of their rice paddies to the high waters, although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged" - what is "the region"? The 3% figure is fairly meaningless without knowing.

The source said it referred to the areas affected by the floods. I said "farmers in the affected region" - that work? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall, the floods destroyed 24,750 homes and damaged 32,426 others" - see above for comment on using a contemporaneous and contingent source ([2])

Good call. The overall isn't perhaps the best word, and the source was only shortly after the floods ended. We know that the floods destroyed at least that many buildings, and the source is accurate, so I put "at least" in. Sadly, unlike the United States, Sri Lanka doesn't have the best disaster infrastructure (as the aftermath stated), so I couldn't find anything substantial after the fact for exactly how many houses were damaged/destroyed. I think the wording change works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The World Meteorological Organization later described the flooding as proof of an increase in more violent weather events" - the source says symptom, not proof (or similar). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread. The source said The World Meteorological Organization cited it as evidence for the increase of anomalous climatic extremes in recent years. I think proof and evidence are fairly synonymous. If you still disagree, I'll happily change it. Thanks again for the thorough review. I welcome all comments, and it means a lot to me that someone was willing to read what I said and critique it :) Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – looks great from writing and presentation standpoints (I've done some minor copyediting, during both this and the previous FAC). My only concern is whether the bit about the storm potentially/maybe/possibly having added in some small way to a heat wave really contributes anything of value. The source is extremely vague, and the attempts to paraphrase it are even more weaselly. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the copyediting! As for the heat wave, I agree it might not be the most typical thing to include in an article, but there is very little related to the storm outside of Sri Lanka. I think it's interesting how a storm can affect regions. The IMD specifically mentioned the heat wave as one of the effects, so hopefully the new wording works better, attributing the source to them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

Support. There's a minor point about currency notation that I'll ask about at WT:FAC, but I'm not going to withhold a support over that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~The infobox gives a three minute sustained wind speed that's higher than the one minute speed; surely that's an error?~~

Weirdly, it's not. The 3-minute winds are the official winds in the basin, while 1-minute winds are unofficial and provided by the JTWC. I've never really thought about how it's formatted, whether the readers might not understand what it means. The article explains who the estimates are from, but perhaps the infobox should as well. I made a post on the talk page for the project, asking others whether we should implement this change. Thanks especially for this feedback here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's weird. Struck, since it's correct, but I think a footnote might be handy, if a better way to present the data can't be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"the southwesterly fetch": I'm not familiar with this usage of "fetch"; could we get a link or note, or even a parenthetical explanation?~~

I didn't have that wording there, I changed it back to "flow", which I think most people would understand. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article would benefit from a map of Sri Lanka showing some of the locations mentioned in the article. I don't think I'd oppose for the lack of this, but I think it would be very helpful to the reader.

Love that idea! I get to add an image, and it's useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, which covered roadways and complicated evacuations": it's not clear what "which" refers to -- the flood waters, or the inundation -- so how about "Along the Gin River, flood waters inundated the surrounding terrain up to 2 m (6.6 ft) deep, covered roadways, and complicated evacuations".

Much clearer, agreed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"After previously wet conditions saturated soils": suggest "Since the previously wet conditions had saturated soils".~~

Thanks, I was never a fan of the previous wording there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Many roads were damaged, including that which links Ratnapura to Colombo": suggest "Many roads were damaged, including the one [or "the road"] which links Ratnapura to Colombo". I think you could re-use "road" here; it's a low-visibility word and the repetition would not be jarring.

I used your wording, but used "that" instead of "which". I think that's the correct usage here. My preference is avoiding using it twice, if that's ok. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Re that vs. which, our article suggests both are correct. From my own observation it seems to be a personal preference, but I think either is fine in most non-restrictive clauses. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged; this was not expected to affect the harvest": suggest "although only about 3% of the rice crop in the region was damaged, so no impact on the rice harvest was expected".

Another sentence that had caused slight troubles before, thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Two different fatality figures are given: 254 and 260.~~

Ack, fixed. There was never a good, solid final damage total. That can sometimes happen for storms in Asia, and especially for the time period. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, becoming the worst floods in Sri Lanka in 56 years, when torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947": This wording doesn't quite work for me; and it's not clear if worst means most fatalities, which is what I would guess. How about "Across the island, floods related to the cyclone killed 260 people, the highest number of flood-related fatalities in Sri Lanka since torrential rainfall struck the island in 1947"?

After rechecking the source, I reorganized it, putting the 1947 bit earlier in the impact section. This gives it a better flow. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"evidence of an increase in more violent weather events": the point in the sources is that this is thought to be due to global climate change, and I think this should be mentioned in the article if you're going to use this comment.

I just decided to remove that comment. I don't think it's worth the drama involved with climate change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suggest combining the first and third paragraphs of the "Elsewhere" section, to avoid a single-sentence paragraph.~~

Good call. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the "රු" symbol is the Sri Lankan rupee symbol. MOS:CURRENCY says to use the ISO 4217 standard when there is no widely known symbol; in this case that would be LKR, as far as I can tell.

OK, I wasn't aware of that part of MOS:Currency, thanks. I changed them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK; see follow up comment after the next point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A separate point is that I don't think you need to say "rupees" as well as using a symbol (though you might do something like that the first time the symbol is used, in order to give the reader the name of the currency); it would be like saying "$50 dollars". There are several examples of this and I don't think the article is consistent internally or with the MoS.

Now that I removed that sign, I think it should use "rupees". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think another tweak is needed. The first mention is "6 million rupees (LKR, $62,500 USD)"; if we're going to use "rupees" as the name for the currency then this looks good, giving the ISO abbreviation for definiteness, plus a link. But then I think subsequent mentions don't need to repeat LKR -- it can just be "15,000 rupees ($156 USD). Alternatively you could follow the MoS to the letter and make it "LKR 6 million (rupees, $62,500 USD)" and drop "rupees" thereafter. What you have now repeats both "LKR" and "rupees", which seems unnecessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I changed it again. RS is another way of designating the currency, just as $ is for dollars. So now it's RS6 million (LKR, $62,500 USD), which is the same format for the rupees as it is for the dollars. Indicate what type of currency (rupees = RS, dollar = $) and the code. That is also in line with how we handle other currencies. Does that work? Your suggestion would make it be like USD 5 million, which just seems a bit odd IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't run into this before so I'm going to go ahead and support, and will post a note at WT:FAC asking for opinions from others who've used lesser-known currencies in their articles. I'm really not sure what the best format is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the World Socialist Website's opinion worth mentioning? I accept that the site is a reliable source for the Fourth International's opinions, but is their opinion something a reader should be told about?

It provides criticism that I think is useful, in case readers were curious why it was as bad as it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see the value of that, but I'm not sure their opinion is particularly notable. A matter of opinion, though, so not a problem if you want to leave it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~"while also commenting how": suggest either "while also pointing out how" or "while also commenting that".~~

Used "that". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally the article is in good shape; I expect to support once these points are taken care of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the thorough review! Hope you like it more now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yellow Evan

I support, a few quick things

"Early on May 11, the deep depression strengthened into a cyclonic storm – marked by maximum sustained winds of at least 65 km/h" mph? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Whoops, got it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that JTWC uses 1 min and IMD uses 3 min. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I added a notes section in general. See if it works now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In May 2003, the highest monthly rainfall in the country was 899 mm (35.4 in) at Gonapenigala Iranganie Estate." no need for "monthly" if you already mention the month (May). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Alright. I changed the "in" to "Throughout" to make it clear that it's a monthly total without having to say the word. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" of which 366.1 millimetres (14.41 in) fell over an 18‑hour period on May 17; at the same station, there was a peak hourly rainfall total of 99.8 mm (3.93 in).[9]" why are mm not abbreviated in one instance and are abbreviated elsewhere? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Abbr=on was capitalized. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happens to me all the time. No worries. :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

I see some discussion of references above, is anyone prepared to sign off on the article re. source formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

ref #28 (Myanmar Times) shows a proxy error (502), but that may be a temporary problem. Suggest to re-check later.

Just in case, I added an archived version of the link, so it's good now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link check: aside from the minor glitch above all online sources are accessible - OK.
Thorough referencing in all sections - OK.
Consistent formatting, reliable sources (journals, news, meteorological and emergency organizations) - OK.

A minor technical problem is not worth fussing about - all OK. GermanJoe (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.