This article is about one of the costliest typhoons in Japan's history. Jebi caused powerful winds and heavy rain over a large swath of Japan, causing widespread damage to infrastructure and power outages. Notably, it shut down Osaka's Kansai International Airport by partially flooding it with storm surge and cutting it off from the mainland by damaging the single access bridge. Jebi was part of a sequence of natural disasters that significantly impacted Japan in the third quarter of 2018, coming after floods in July and succeeded by an earthquake and another typhoon. Note: I have no proficiency in Japanese and relied a lot on manipulating machine translations to make sense of and locate Japanese sources; I believe the translations are accurate enough and have in some instances double-checked with a friend that can read Japanese. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will review the new and improved article sometime in the next few days. Would appreciate a review for Michael's Met if you are able to. NoahTalk 14:27, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Typhoon Jebi, known in Japan as Typhoon Number 21[1] and in the Philippines as Typhoon Maymay, was the costliest typhoon in Japan's history in terms of insured losses and the strongest to make landfall in the country since Yancy in 1993. This is a lot for one sentence.
Are there impacts for the Russian Far East? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found some sources in Russian but am presently uncertain whether they can be considered RSes. I'll do a little more digging and see what else I can find. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I've found (Izvestia, RBC, Vesti, Rossiyskaya Gazeta) all appear to be state-owned or state-linked (but such is most Russian-language media). English sources don't cover impact in Russia at all - it appears to have been greatly overshadowed by impact in Japan. Given this is an apolitical subject I'm less skeptical of state-owned/linked media than usual, but I would prefer some confirmation before going ahead and adding them to the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that, I added it in anyway. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Would you be able to give a full review? I would hate to see this fail solely due to lack of reviews. NoahTalk 19:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Should "named storm" be linked?
"and made landfalls over Shikoku and near Kobe early on September 4" - given that Shikoku is an island, and Kobe is a city (but only the 7th largest), I felt like they should both be the island listed (so central Honshu instead of "near Kobe").
"Jebi was the strongest typhoon to make landfall in Japan since Yancy in 1993 and left significant effects across the Kansai region. " - the first part of the sentence talks about the entire nation, but the second part focuses only on a certain part. Then, you talk about the wind records. I suggest reordering the 2nd lead paragraph
"Heavy swells produced by Jebi caused large waves along the coast of Taiwan that resulted in seven fatalities (including a suspected suicide) from September 2 to 3. " - I think the wording could be stronger
The article looks good to go, for the most part. I'm planning to give this one a full review within a week. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that Jebi caused US$13–14 billion in insured losses. Is there a more recent damage estimate for the overall damage? I'd like to know how much more damage the storm actually caused, especially when compared to Typhoon Hagibis. However, I won't make this one a requirement if no such reports are out there.
and left nearly 3 million customers without electricity after blowing down power lines. For how long? I'd like the length of time to be included, if possible.
The JTWC similarly upgraded the system six hours later. Since both the JMA and the JTWC use different classification systems, you might want to mention that the JTWC upgraded the system to tropical storm status.
The JTWC analyzed that Jebi intensified into a super typhoon by 18:00 UTC on August 30 with winds of 260 km/h (160 mph), In the note, you should also mention that this is equivalent to a strong Category 4 hurricane or stronger on the SSHWS scale. And maybe also specify that Jebi became a Category 5-equivalent super typhoon in the prose.
The cycle completed by 21:00 UTC on August 31 while Jebi began to curve northward through a weakness in the subtropical ridge. Add a comma after "August 31". It currently reads like a run-on.
began to accelerate Jebi north-northeast, change "north-northeast" to "north-northeastward".
Jebi's remnants actually dissipated on September 9. Maybe mention that Jebi was tracked by the JTWC until September 9, and cite the JTWC's track data, if necessary (in the absence of other sources).
an elderly man in Kawagoe was injured when he was blown over by a strong gust and a woman was hit by a flying object. Add a comma after "strong gust".
and the previously flooded runway reopened on September 14. Change "previously flooded" to "previously-flooded".
Strong winds collapsed the roofs of a school and kindergarten; at the former, the falling roof fractured a girl's ankle. I assume that "kidergarten" here refers to the girl. If this is the case, please change "kindergarten" to "kindergartener", since the term is incorrectly used as it is right now.
impacted Japan in October and became one of the costliest typhoons on record This is in the "See also" section. Change "October" to "October 2019", because Hagibis did not strike Japan in the same year as Jebi.
These are all of the issues that I've managed to identify during my first read-through of the article. Overall, it is very solid and likely on the cusp of FA status. However, I would like to see the issues resolved before formally lending my support for an FA promotion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole there has been a great amount of work put into this article, but it's still severely lacking in content. There has to be more information on aftermath and recovery efforts given the breadth of damage across Japan. From skimming the article, I see only two sentences relating to national aftermath and plus information on the Kansai International Airport. Further, I don't really see any damage information from Shikoku (where Jebi first made landfall) though this may be due to the bulk of impact being to the east. Given the significant amount of missing content, this article is still below FA status and should not have passed GAN. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"broke wind records at 100 Japanese weather stations". Exactly 100 weather stations?
"nearly 3 million customers without electricity". I think that they would be better described as 'people' than "customers".
Assuming the source says customers (haven't checked), this should not be changed to people - one customer may represent a household of multiple people. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"from the adverse weather conditions". This can perhaps be taken as read? Optional: delete.
"affected the storage of livestock". Are livestock stored?
"Storm surge inundated part of Kansai International Airport". Either 'A storm surge', or 'Storm surges'.
"The JTWC analyzed that Jebi intensified". That is not grammatical. Perhaps 'The JTWC analysis suggested that Jebi intensified' or similar.
"Racing poleward". Racing seems unencyclopedic and inappropriate. And are there figures for how fast it was moving?
"before later declaring it post-tropical". One of "before" and "when" is redundant.
"while heavy rains and storm surge flooded". Either 'storm surges', or 'the storm surge'.
"which was significantly higher than the previous record set by Typhoon Cimaron just 12 days earlier" Which was?
"The maximum storm surge produced by Jebi was 3.29 m (10.8 ft) in Osaka, surpassing the previous record of 2.93 m (9.6 ft) from the 2nd Muroto Typhoon (Typhoon Nancy) in 1961." Surpassing the previous record at that one location, or setting a new, all-Japan record?
"with Chubu Electric Power reporting 695,320 blackouts". I am unsure what this means. Is it that 695,320 people (or househplds, or customers) lost electricity due to one blackout?
"Numerous incidents resulted from Jebi's high winds and heavy rain." This seems redundant to me. Optional: delete.
The paragraph which starts with "Numerous incidents resulted ..." is very long. Suggest splitting.
"at least five more people in the eponymous prefecture". "eponymous" is not the correct word. Suggest 'same'.
This looks to be in good shape. Unlike Cyclonebiskit I am unconcerned by the paucity of information on recovery efforts; that seems to me to be at least arguably outside the scope of the article. I would however be interested to hear why there is so little information on the damage at Shikoku. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: information on aftermath/recovery relating to tropical cyclones has been a staple of these articles since the project began as far as I'm aware (definitely since I joined in 2007). It's an essential part of completely covering the topic. In some cases, the aftermath of a tropical cyclone is more significant than the initial impact in some areas (re: Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cyclonebiskit. This is, I think, only the second storm article I have reviewed (from over 200 FAC reviews) but it seems to me to cover "Typhoon Jebi (2018)" perfectly well. A lot of detail on the aftermath may even have me objecting that it fails to stay "focused on the main topic" (criterion 4) - but that is hypothetical. I can see that the aftermath is going to be more important from a human perspective than the storm, which otherwise is just weather. But that, it seems to me is either a separate article, Aftermath of Typhoon Jebi (2018), or, if combined, in need of renaming Typhoon Jebi (2018) and its aftermath. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
coord note with two opposes I'm going to say that it needs to be worked out on the talk page rather than here. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.