Wikipedia

Talk:Typhoon Bebinca/GA2

< Talk:Typhoon Bebinca
Latest comment: 9 days ago by Hurricanehink in topic GA review

GA review

edit
Latest comment: 9 days ago48 comments2 people in discussion

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

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 01:29, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 21:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply


I figured I should review this because I have a GAN.

I'm copying my review from before that weren't addressed:

  • "the first typhoon to made landfall in the city since Typhoon Muifa in 2022" - source?
  • There is none; removed
  • "Inland, Bebinca quickly weakened to a severe tropical storm due to land interaction as it moved west-northwest under the steering influence of the subtropical high." - you should say when Bebinca made landfall. Also, didn't it quickly weaken to a tropical storm, not just a STS? And shouldn't the subtropical high be mentioned earlier?
  • Fixed
  • It still says that Bebinca quickly weakened to a severe tropical storm. My point was that it weakened in general, not just to a subtropical storm. And also, the mention of the subtropical high feels like an afterthought. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Removed the subtropical high mention. As the best track archival website is deprecated, I have used IBTRACS to cite the TS claim and re-added it to the lead.
Make sure you fix the met history, which ends on the 17th, not 18th. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Finished the met history using IBTRACS.
  • "In China, Bebinca caused two fatalities and one injury, but the country was soon impacted by Tropical Storm Pulasan just days later. " - I don't understand the "but" here. Also China is a big country.
  • Removed the Pulasan part
  • " Bebinca significantly affected Guam, leading to storm warnings being issued" - after China?
  • Placed it before China
  • "In Japan, thousands of homes lost power in Amami, and high winds were recorded in Okinawa Prefecture. " - why is Japan after China, when it was affected first? Also, how strong were the winds?
  • Placed it before; removed the winds part as the source does not present Kadena as the actual wind recorder.
  • "Typhoon Bebinca emerged from an area of atmospheric convection 385 km (239 mi) east-northeast of Kosrae on September 5." - your wording is unclear here, what you mean by "emerged". Did it become Typhoon Bebinca that day? The infobox says the 9th
  • Changed to originated; the TCFA was actually issued on the 9th, but the atmospheric convection was from September 5.
  • "as it consolidated with a central dense overcast (CDO) feature obscuring its circulation center while tracking near Guam,[7] and subsequently turned west-northwestward due to interaction with an upper vortex." - I'm not sure what this means. Can you rewrite it to make it simpler? Also how close did it get to Guam?
  • Rewrote
  • That is not original research, as you are not interpreting information in a new way that would be difficult to verify. As you have the coordinates and they are sourced, you can use them to figure out the distance, and you wouldn't need a secondary source for where Guam is located, since that's pretty indisputable (13.4N, 144.79E) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
I suggest simplifying it to just "Guam", since the island is so small. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Done.
  • "By 06:00 PHT (10:00 UTC), Bebinca had entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR) and was subsequently named Ferdie by the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA),[13] but just a few hours later, it exited the PAR." - these are a lot of words to say that PAGASA briefly issued advisories on the system as "Ferdie". Can you simplify this?
  • I tried to simplify, but most words are from the full name of PAGASA
  • "The JMA reported that Bebinca reached its peak intensity at 00:00 UTC on September 15 with 10-minute sustained winds of 140 km/h (85 mph) and a central pressure of 965 hPa (28.50 inHg),[21] before eventually peaking at Category 1-equivalent intensity on the Saffir-Simpson scale with 1-minute sustained winds of 140 km/h (85 mph) - you mention 140 km/h twice, unless I'm missing something here.
  • Aren't 10-minute and 1-minute sustained different? I think this just says that it peaked in JMA and then JTWC
  • But both agencies said the same wind speed. Can you find a way of writing it to avoid writing out the exact wind speed twice? Also, I notice you're using the prognostic reasoning for the JTWC. Be sure to cite the best track when it comes to peak intensities. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "On September 16, at around 07:30 CST,[22] Bebinca made landfall in Lingang New City, Shanghai, China,[23] becoming the strongest typhoon to hit the area since Typhoon Gloria in 1949,[24][25] with a microwave eye feature spanning 29 miles (46 km) and convective bands extending south-southwestward as it moved west-northwestward under the steering influence of the subtropical high." - A few things. Why do you switch to CST after using UTC previously? Also, the last part is a lot of complicated details that doesn't seem relevant - "convective bands extending south-southwestward as it moved west-northwestward under the steering influence of the subtropical high"
  • The source uses CST, but I converted it to UTC. Removed the last few words.
  • The article should be consistent. Most of the article uses UTC, but some of it uses CST, and some of it uses the Philippine time zone. Also, I notice you have miles first instead of km. The whole article should be metric units first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • "Inland, Bebinca quickly diminished to a severe tropical storm due to land interaction,[28] with the JMA tracking the system until it was last noted on September 18." - when did it weaken into a tropical depression?
  • September 17, 00:00, but I can't cite archive.today sources so I just changed it to September 17.
  • Yes, but it seems a bit contradictory to use JTWC (JMA already stopped before it downgraded) just after it said the JTWC stopped issuing warnings.
  • "The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) stated that the southwest monsoon, locally called Habagat, will enhance when the storm enters the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR), and continue after the storm exits the PAR." - why the usage of "will enhance"? The article should be in the past tense.
  • Already changed
  • I don't think you see the problem here. The writing implies that the stuff would happen in the future. That's not useful for a storm two years ago. We know that the storm did in fact enhance the monsoon. Please rewrite/remove parts of the preps section that don't add anything, like this part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Removed this and another sentence, as I don't know how to make it useful.
  • "Bebinca was also predicted to bring heavy rains across the northern portion of the Philippines. Thunderstorms were also expected in the rest of Luzon and Metro Manila." - the prediction isn't useful, what's important is what actually happened. Unless there were rainfall warnings, and people evacuated because of the warnings. That would be a different story.
  • Removed
  • Removed along with the former
  • "PAGASA also predicted that the storm will intensify into a typhoon" - it did. Why is this important?
  • Already removed
  • "PAGASA stated that the storm will bring 1.5–3.5 metres (1.6–3.8 yards) high flash floods to Palawan, Western Visayas, Negros Island Region, Central Visayas, Eastern Visayas, Caraga, Northern Mindanao, Zamboanga Peninsula and the Davao Region." - two things. First, you use ft or inches elsewhere in the article, not yards. Second, can you condense all of these areas?
  • Fixed
  • "The heavy rains brought by the storm-associated trough and southwest monsoon damaged or destroyed nearly 97 homes in the Philippines, displacing over 36,626 people and causing infrastructure damage estimated at ₱200,000 (US$4,060.91)." - that's a lot of info, but it should be reorganized. Start by saying that the storm interacted with the monsoon to produce heavy rainfall. Do you have any rainfall totals? Then you can get into the affected infrastructure. Lastly, if the floods damaged or destroyed less than 97 homes, that means there were 377 people per home, if 36,626 people became displaced. The math seems off. Can you check it?
  • The source is a dead link so I can't calculate the damages. The source most likely has no rainfall totals anyway.
  • I can't find it on the official NDRRMC website and it wasn't properly archived through web.archive.org. Should NDRRMC be removed? Most online sources cite PAGASA's rainfall totals prediction; I cannot find any independent rainfall total.
  • "All fatalities were caused by falling trees" - this should be moved to when you mention the fatalities
  • Done
  • The grammar is worse now: "In total, 203,197 people were affected, with at least six fatalities all caused by falling trees, including four children aboard a tricycle in Malabang, Lanao del Sur and two in the Zamboanga Peninsula., two missing persons; and eleven injuries reported. " ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • Tried my best to fix
  • "with at least six fatalities all caused by falling trees. Four of those fatalities consisted of children aboard a tricycle in Malabang" - so the four children fatalities were all on a single tricycle, caused by falling trees? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
  • For the China section, you only mention four homes being damaged. That seems awfully light for a storm that caused more than $1 billion in damage
  • That was only in Shangai, but that was what the source said
  • " But in a report from China Meteorological Administration to the 19th Integrated Workshop of ESCAP/WMO Typhoon Committee in November 2024, total damage from Bebinca in China could reached 550 billion RMB (US$75.8 billion)." - don't start a sentence with "But".
  • Already fixed
  • Were there any impacts in Guam?
  • Minor damage; added
  • "In Taiwan, as a way of preparation, weather researchers used artificial intelligence to predict the storm path. " - that's not unique to Taiwan. A lot of weather forecasts use super advanced computer models. So I'm not sure if this is important
  • Removed
  • "The storm was predicted to bring heavy rains to Taiwan, with possible thunderstorms occurring." - did it?
  • I don't see any sources but based on satellite images, it probably didn't
  • " The storm was forecast to pass through Okinawa" - did it?
  • Most sources only showed the forecast, so I don't know
  • "High winds were recorded at Kadena Air Base" - how strong?
  • Removed

Here are my new notes.

  • "Bebinca formed from atmospheric convection 385 km (239 mi) east-northeast of Kosrae, was upgraded to a tropical storm by the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) on September 10, and was named Bebinca, before turning west-northwest due to interaction with an upper vortex; by September 13, as it entered the Philippine Area of Responsibility, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration named it Ferdie, and it eventually moved across the Ryukyu Islands, where both the Joint Typhoon Warning Center and the JMA upgraded it to a minimal typhoon. " - this is way too much for one sentence
  • Already split
  • "On September 13, the JMA reported that the storm had weakened to a tropical storm due to its near-surface circulation being fully exposed and its banding being fragmented along the northern edge,[12] with a broad tail of deep monsoonal flow and a tropical upper tropospheric trough cell to the west continuing to infuse dry air into the storm's mid-level core." - so is this
  • Split

There are a lot of the same problems from before, so I will leave the GAN open for a bit so TheNuggeteer can work on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricanehink: addressed everything. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 03:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

New issues:

  • " Overall, Bebinca caused an estimated US$2.49 billion in damage across the Philippines and China." - source? This is inconsistent with the article.
  • Changed
  • "385 km (239 mi)" - units should be rounded
  • Done
  • Where does ref 3 mention "disorganized wave in the easterlies"?
  • Removed
  • Where does ref 9 mention "The system then turned west-northwestward due to interaction with an upper vortex"?
  • Changed to subtropical ridge
  • " meanwhile, Bebinca developed a ragged eye feature and maintained a symmetrical and impressive CDO over the past six hours" - this sounds like it came right from an advisory. "over the past six hours" is too time specific to be useful.
  • Changed

@TheNuggeteer: the article still has some issues, some related to research and sourcing, and some related to the writing. Please take your time to review the comments before saying you addressed everything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Hurricanehink: addressed the issues you brought up. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 02:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Hurricanehink: hello? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 (My "blotter") 13:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
@TheNuggeteer: you haven't fixed many of the issues I brought up. Can you reply to each of the points I brought up and confirm that you've either done them, or explain why you couldn't/didn't? The article isn't there yet. Also, there's probably one too many images in the impact section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Typhoon_Bebinca/GA2&oldid=1356814949"