Talk:Typhoon Yutu

Picture of peak intensity

Honestly, I am not satisfied with Yutu 2018-10-24 1610Z.jpg, as it is a significantly enlarged infrared picture with an artificial background which is impossible to be colourful at night. I have requested some of my friends to build a NOAA-20 day-night-band picture at 1551Z but they recently encountered issues. I have uploaded Yutu 2018-10-25 0050Z.png that is true-colour and also during the peak intensity period, so we could choose it as the cover picture.-- 🐱💬 10:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

hello everybody

I am sorry for all the terrible edits, i was going to change the wind speed to 187 mph due to a site that says the wind speed, however, adding 1 just changes it to 190, that why I attempted to change it to 155.2, also adding the word strongest storm to hit Saipan in a 100 years was to make it look more interesting, if u can help me, please comment on my talk page.-terryTerryfirut (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terryfirut (talk • contribs) 09:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.--B dash (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon yutu peak intensity picture change

I feel like using this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Yutu_2018-10-24_1610Z.jpg would be better than this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Yutu_2018-10-24_1551Z.png, since the other Wikipedia's uses the same picture above.we can also use this https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f5/20181027165550%21Yutu_2018-10-24_1610Z.jpg.Terryfirut (talk) 09:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Terryfirut: First, we are not bound by the practices of Wikipedia's in other languages. Second, when choosing between images of the storm at peak intensity, visual images are preferred when there are no other distinctions.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Typhoon Yutu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: JCMLuis (talk · contribs) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 19:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Lead
  • "An eyewall replacement cycle ensues" - why the present tense?
    •  Done: changed to past tense
  • You don't mention the peak in the lead in terms of winds
    •  Done: added peak winds
  • "Yutu brought minor impacts to Rota and Guam, causing power outages and damage worth US$2.750 million." - Rota is in the NMI, so is the $2.75 million include Rota's portion, and is that part of the $800 million in damage for the NMI?
    •  Done: rewrote sentence
Met history
  • "Located 1,817 km (1,129 mi) east-southeast of Andersen Air Force Base in Guam" - why so exact with the distance and location? Guam isn't that big
    •  Done: removed "Guam"
  • "By 12:00 UTC, the JMA and JTWC reported that Typhoon Yutu had attained its peak intensity, with the former estimating maximum sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph)" - you should clarify that JMA's winds are 10-minute sustained
    •  Done
  • "Continuing northwestward, Yutu was positioned 56 km (35 mi) west-northwest of Saipan as it approached the island. " - few things wrong. First, if it's approaching the island, it would be from the east, not WNW. Also, the exact position doesn't matter when you're referring to its approach. I honestly feel you can delete this whole sentence, unless you like the "continuing" part as a start of a paragraph
    •  Done: considering that the JTWC Prognostic Reasoning used for that sentence was around the time of landfall, I've instead moved it to the front of the sentence about the first landfall.
  • The met history gives no indication for how long the storm was over Saipan, or that it reintensified after leaving the island. You should probably mention something to the effect of "After striking the islands..." for context and flow. Not everyone knows Saipan is only a few miles wide.
    •  Done
  • "Between 20:00 UTC and 21:00 UTC, Yutu made landfall over Dinapigue, Isabela, Philippines, with winds of 139 km/h (86 mph) recorded by the PAGASA." - where does it say the last part? According to the source, the highest wind gust in the Philippines was 130 km/h, recorded in Casiguran. The report doesn't mention any observations from Dinapigue.
    • In page 161, it shows the best track of Yutu (Rosita) from PAGASA, which includes the wind speed during 21:00 UTC (75 knots).
Impact
  • "Surface observations recorded maximum sustained winds of 270 km/h (170 mph) with wind gusts of 320 km/h (200 mph)." - these were not recorded, these were estimated
    •  Done
  • "During the passage of Yutu, at least 121–133 people were injured" - if it's at least 121, you don't need the upper range. If you want to include the range, then you don't need "at least"
    •  Done
  • "According to the United States National Climatic Data Center, at least 1,000 structures were damaged or destroyed" - is there a reason to include this when you have damage estimates elsewhere in the same paragraph that are higher?
    • Because those other damage estimates only mentioned homes. Schools, power plants, hotels, and other structures were also damaged. Nevermind. The estimate likely included homes; removed.
  • "The typhoon killed two people in Saipan" - I feel like this should be earlier, maybe when you mention the injuries?
    •  Done
  • "Yutu caused property damage of $500,000, while crop damage was estimated at $250,000." - it's implied, but mention that this estimate is for Guam
    •  Done
  • "and no major damage or injuries from Yutu were reported" - we don't usually mention when things don't happen
    •  Done: removed
  • I think the Philippines section would be stronger if it had an intro paragraph with meteorological observations, and mentioning the landslides, as a way of setting it up, since right now there is a lot of different things in that first paragraph
    •  Done?
  • "According to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), the storm killed 29 people" - why not word it so that the storm killed 32 people in the country, and just have the three references to back that up?
    •  Done
  • "In Ilocos Sur, Yutu's winds tilted a closed van." - what does that mean, tilting? Like it almost knocked it over, but didn't? Seems trivial.
    •  Done: removed
Aftermath
  • "President Trump signed a major disaster declaration on October 26, enabling the islands to receive federal funding. " - is this different than the president signing an emergency declaration on October 24th in the preps section?
    •  Done: the difference with the emergency declaration on Oct. 24 is that it deployed FEMA personnel, while the disaster declaration on Oct. 26 allowed the CNMI to receive aid for repairing homes and also funded relief programs. I made sure to establish that in the Preparations section.
  • "FEMA scheduled aircraft to deliver relief supplies by October 26. " - when did this actually happen? Sounds like it was from a press release for something that would be happening, but it's better to get confirmation
    • Couldn't find anything about this, and since the airports were severely damage and there were difficulties due to it, I decided to remove the sentence.
  • Here is an article about the aftermath, how about 15,000 people were left homeless, leading FEMA to fly some people to other locations, there's PTSD and some storm-related suicides.
    •  Done
  • More about emergency medical team flown in
    •  Done
  • More about tourism and aftermath
    •  Done

All in all, the article is in really good shape. The only spot I think could be expanded is the aftermath, which would be useful if you want to take the article to FAC down the line (which I think you should consider!) Lemme know if you have any questions about these comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Please let me know what you think. —JCMLuis 💬 23:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Typhoon Yutu

I've listed this article for peer review because I'm interested in getting this to FA, but I would like a review before nominating it for FAC.

Thanks, —JCMLuis 💬 19:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JCMLuis, glad you're willing to take the article to the next level.

  • Use whatever scholarly research papers there are
    • I've only added one source since I can't seem to find a place to put other information from other sources without it being too technical.
  • "...by both wind speed and barometric pressure." - you link to barometric pressure here, so you should probably link wind speed
    • Done
  • Maybe related to the first point, you should research more into the origins of Yutu, see if you can find more of a definitive precursor. It's kind of vague right now. Also, at the beginning of the MH when you mention the Air Force Base as a point of reference, it doesn't help the reader identify where we are. The article only once mentions that it's occurring in the Pacific Ocean in the lead/infobox, so there should be some reference to the Pacific Ocean. Also, from the look of the map, it seems that Yutu formed a lot closer to another landmass, say the Federated States of Micronesia or Marshall Islands. You can use a latitude/longitude calculator if you feel there's another place that's a better locational reference point.
    • Added coordinates and removed the Andersen AFB reference. I'll see if I can find more about Yutu's origins.
      • I can't find anything about Yutu's origins in scholarly research papers. I can only find this, which uses data from the JTWC and goes back to October 18.
  • "Yutu expanded in size from persistent, conducive environmental conditions, with the strongest convection positioned to the east and south of the center;[12] an intense rainband to the south later develops, marking the beginning of a period of explosive intensification." - I might've missed this from the GAR, but everything should be in past tense.
    • Done
  • The eye size is inconsistent. You say "Over a region of high ocean heat content, the eye became well-defined and expanded to 43 km (26 mi)" - and later - "Yutu's eye grew to 37 km (23 mi)".
    • Changed the second sentence to "Yutu's eye became 37 km (23 mi) wide..."
  • You mention Yutu was the strongest to hit the Northern Marianas Islands. What was the strongest before Yutu? Probably Soudelor or Kim, but I can't find a reference for that. No worries if you can't find that either, but it would be a good addition.
    • this source says that Yutu surpassed Soudelor, but is comparable to Typhoon Jean in 1968. Regardless, I've added that info to the article.
  • "Continuing northwestward, Yutu was positioned 56 km (35 mi) west-northwest of Saipan after striking the Mariana Islands." - I'm not sure what this adds. You already mentioned the landfall and you already mentioned the movement.
    • Removed sentence, kept "after striking the Mariana Islands"
  • The eyewall replacement cycle is written over the course over a few sentences, so by the time you said "The cycle was then completed, evident by a Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder image" - I wasn't sure you were even talking about an eyewall replacement cycle still.
    • Swapped placement of some sentences. Hopefully its easier to understand.
  • You should write out and define what PAGASA stands for at least once in the article.
    • Done
  • The final Met history paragraph needs more date references. It has several time references in the first few sentences, but no dates.
    • Done
  • "While the storm was 713 km (443 mi) east-northeast of Manila, Philippines, rainbands began to collapse, after outflow had reduced." - that's extremely precise for the moment rainbands began to collapse
    • Reworded
  • "The JTWC followed suit in downgrading the system six hours later,[11] after the storm had lost all of its convection from unfavorable wind shear while 287 km (178 mi) southeast of Hong Kong." - again, the location reference doesn't make sense here. JTWC isn't the official agency, so you're mentioning the location when an unofficial agency downgraded a storm to a depression. I think you should save the last location reference for when/where Yutu dissipated, and how far southeast of Hong Kong it was.
    • Done?
  • In general the met history is dense and wordy. That's fine if you know a lot of tropical cyclone technical terms, but the average reader might not know them as well. Because of that, I think some parts might need to be moved around. Think of it this way - you're writing a narrative about a storm from beginning to end. There are a lot of factors into the movement and intensification, which the average reader might be interested in, if it was written as simply as it could. A few examples of some wordy/tricky sentences are:
  • "Having an unorganized low-level circulation center with scattered thunderstorms, the tropical disturbance situated over warm sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of 29–30 °C (84–86 °F) and low vertical wind shear, and also acquired dual outflow channels aloft—all of which aided in development."
    • Done
  • "As the inchoate cyclone steered west-northwestward along a subtropical ridge to its southwest, radial outflow was limited by a weak tropical upper tropospheric trough (TUTT) cell to the system's northwest,[9] though it soon diminished the next day." - I've never even heard of the word "inchoate"
    • Replaced "inchoate" with "newborn"
  • "The JTWC operationally estimated 1-minute sustained winds of 285 km/h (180 mph)—based on Dvorak estimates of T7.5, which utilized satellite appearance to determine intensity—making Yutu equivalent to a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale,[20][21] but lowered it to 280 km/h (175 mph) following post-season analysis." - what's important is the official peak intensity. I'd have a separate sentence saying what the operational peak intensity was.
    • Done
  • "Convection became less symmetrical, with Yutu's west-northwestward movement influenced by the subtropical ridge south of Honshu and a large, weak mid-latitude shortwave trough associated with it. " - south of Honshu could be anywhere, and there's no connection for what/where Honshu even is
    • Changed "south of Honshu" to "north of the storm" since that's what the JTWC Prognostic Reasoning used said.
  • "However, Yutu began experiencing moderate to high wind shear while turning northward due to outflow being limited elsewhere and cooled sea surface temperatures, as its center becomes poorly-defined and deep convection becomes displaced to the northeast"
    • Reworded
  • In general the met history could probably be trimmed down a bit. Don't get rid of any information, but try and find places where you can streamline information. Keep similar information together. Some sentences mention both intensification and movement in the same sentence, but those could be affected by different mechanics.

That's my peer review through the end of the met history. The article is certainly impressive, but some parts need to be refined a bit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thank you for the review. I should've mentioned that I somewhat rewrote the meteorological history section prior to the peer review to try to get the most info, so that's probably why you thought you missed some things to point out during GAN. Anyways, I tried my best to address your comments, and would like to know what you think. —JCMLuis 💬 23:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot about this for a bit. I'll continue from the preparations section.

  • "People were encouraged to report price gouging, as it was illegal when under COR 2, to the Office of the Attorney General." - interesting bit, but the wording could be improved. Maybe mention this when you also mention Guam being under COR 2, and be clearer like "People were encouraged to price gouging to the Office..." - and I'm guessing this is the AG of Guam? If that's the case, maybe say "the island's Attorney General"?
  • "On October 27, after Yutu (Rosita) had entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility, the PAGASA issued gale warnings across the northern and eastern seaboards of Luzon and the eastern seaboard of the Visayas, due to the enhancement of the northeast monsoon (Amihan) by Yutu." - I since you have Rotisa and Amihan in parenthesis for two different reasons, I suggest taking your time to explain the last part (what Amihan is and what it means to enhance the monsoon)
  • "Yutu was anticipated to make landfall after Typhoon Mangkhut (Ompong) had devastated the country in September." - unlike earlier when this has context (Guam had supplies after Mangkhut's passage), there isn't much context why this matters here. So I suggest moving it closer to the part about the complains from local governments and Duterte.
  • "About 32,519 people were pre-emptively evacuated from the Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley, Central Luzon, and the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR)... In total, about 155,242 people had moved to 1,388 evacuation centers." - why the specificity for the evacuations from the first region, versus the whole country?
  • "Surface observations estimated maximum sustained winds of 270 km/h (170 mph) with wind gusts of 320 km/h (200 mph)." - how can surface observations estimate anything? People can estimate, but the observations can't.
  • " Though 68 mm (2.66 in) of rain was observed at Saipan International Airport, it was likely well below the actual rainfall. A rain gauge measured 250 mm (10 in) of rain, though it was 4.8 km (3 mi) northeast of Yutu's eye." - why is it worth mentioning the rainfall at Saipan, and why was it likely well below the actual rainfall? This doesn't seem important compared to the other rain observation, but I might be missing something.
  • "The entirety of both islands were left without electricity; around 200 to 300 power poles were downed... By the time the storm had passed, there were 779 downed poles in Saipan and 183 in Tinian" - seems contradictory/redundant
  • "Roads were inaccessible due to debris, in addition to ports." - Roads and ports both were inaccessible?
  • "Four hotels were closed after sustaining significant damage." - that's on the vague side. What kind of damage?
  • "462 homes were completely destroyed and 317 were severely damaged across Kagman, Lau Lau, Susupe, Chalan Kanoa, San Antonio, Koblerville, Dandan, and San Vicente." - what's the significance of these locations? There was already a total number of houses destroyed in the previous paragraph. A total number for the island would be useful, but I understand if you don't have that.
  • "Emergency responders rescued 30 people." - during the typhoon? And I'm not sure what's meant by rescue here. Did they need help evacuating?
  • "In total, 70 homes were destroyed and 113 were severely damaged across the villages of San Jose, the House of Taga, Carolinas, Marpo Valley and Marpo Heights." - similar question as earlier, what's the significance of these locations? Again, a total number for the island would be useful, but I understand if you don't have that.
  • " In San Jose, some generators whirred among flattened buildings" - whirred?
  • "The island was without power with over 50 downed power poles severely damaged or destroyed,[90] and 13 homes were destroyed and 38 were damaged across Songsong and Sinapalo." - this could be split into two sentence since it covers two different aspects. Just to confirm, the whole island was without power?
  • Are there any examples of storm damage in Guam? There's only power outages mentioned, not sure if that's the "property damage".
  • "At least 11 landslides were reported across Luzon." - bad way of starting off a new section. You should start with a way of introducing Yutu's Philippine effects
  • "The total amount of damage to agriculture was estimated at ₱2.904 billion (US$55.160 million), mostly towards rice." - I don't think "towards" is the right word
  • "Seven landslides across Kalinga closed roads across the province" - don't use "across" twice in the same sentence. Could you reword?
  • "Two elementary schools in Tanudan were submerged in flooding, though no casualties had been reported there. " - you don't need to mention the places casualties didn't occur.
  • "The provinces of Cagayan, Isabela, Quirino, and Nueva Vizcaya had all lost power. " - this is now the third time you mention power outages in the Philippines section, and none of them are in the same location. It's good to lump similar information together so there is more narrative flow.
  • Similarly, later on you have "Polillo and Lucena of Quezon lost power." - random mentions of cities losing power isn't that useful unless there's more context to it.
  • There are several times when you mention a location being flooded, but don't have any follow up. I don't think it's that useful, and maybe they should be removed, or perhaps broadened to something like "Numerous areas were flooded in X provinces". I noticed it by the time I got to - "In Bambang, six low-lying barangays were affected by flooding. In Cagayan, flooding occurred over Gattaran and Tuguegarao."
  • "A truck on the Quirino Bridge overturned due to strong winds, causing traffic jams." - would be nice to have this when you last mentioned Quirino
  • "In Central Luzon, 675 houses were damaged." - does this include Ilocos?
  • The aftermath section should be reorganized a bit so there is more of a hierarchical flow. Right now it feels disjoined, with a random mention of Matson, Inc. providing funds after finding out it was a major disaster area. The first paragraph should be an overview, and cover the federal response. For example, there's a mention that the power was expected to be out for a few months, but no mention when power was actually restored. Parts of the aftermath cover what I expect, like the number of people homeless, kids being out of school for a month, that sort of thing. However, some parts seem like they're written right after the storm, like:
  • "Around 140 guardmen from the Guam Army National Guard were expected to arrive and begin duty on Saipan for approximately 60 days." - "were expected" is an odd choice of word. Either they arrived or they didn't. And if they did, was it actually 60 days? Also....
  • "The Army Guard's 1224th Engineer Support Company was set to assist along with the United States Indo-Pacific Command and FEMA. " - the "was set" looks like it's unclear. Did it happen or not?
  • "Yutu also reverted the goal of providing 24-hour water to every village on Saipan achieved in September." - has this been reaccomplished? That would be an interesting follow up since you brought it up originally.
  • "A medical team of 26 led by Sheryl Dority, a nurse for Intermountain Healthcare from South Jordan, Utah, operated for three weeks until November 7, after treating more than 1,400 patients for cleanup-related injuries." - seems like the details about Dority are unnecessarily specific.
  • [1] - looks like Saipan is still responding to Yutu, and there is a recent update about FEMA funding you might wanna check out...
  • [2] - also a lawsuit about workers
  • NMI college info
  • Hopwood school
  • debris removal completed
  • Tourism has remained down, so Yutu has had a significant long term impact

In general the article is a great account of the storm, but it seems there is a bit more to the story. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Typhoon_Yutu