DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

What's your name?

[edit]

I have been seeing the name of this cyclone being written in different ways in Devanagari scripts. The pronunciation of it also thus keeps changing.

What exactly is the name? How is "Hudhud" exactly pronounced? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Dharmadhyaksha: In Hindi it is mostly written हुदहुद. You can find it in most of the newspapers. Few exceptional pages may have different names. Detailed page on this can be found in Hindi at BBC Hindi (See also Birds in the Quran: Hoopoe)☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

second phase of cyclone hudhud

[edit]

Ram nareshji (talk) 12:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Please create section about second phase of cyclone hudhud, because most of damage is done by second phase of cyclone hudhud on October 12,2014 around 2:00 PM IST[reply]

Post tropical phase

[edit]

In addition to the deadly avalanche, the Nepal blizzard has killed at least 41 in the Annapurna mountain range. See http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/nepal-official-stranded-trekkers-rescued-26290437 — Preceding unsigned comment added by FSUrv95 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge avalanche article?

[edit]

Since it appears Hudhud contributed to the avalanche, should that article be merged here? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. At least outside India, the 2014 Nepal snowstorm disaster has received plenty of standalone coverage and requires a separate article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask this again. I'm sure the snowstorm disaster got a lot of coverage on its own, but the event was related to the cyclone. See the 1995 India cyclone for a parallel. Hudhud had impacts from India to Nepal, and the low extended into the Himalayas, so it's not like it was a separate meteorology event. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. The above comment still applies. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 13:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll section

[edit]

Hey all, I am not very familiar with the table-making process, but could someone edit the "death toll" table at the end of the article so that it was apparent that some places listed are inside India, and that Nepal is a separate country? Right now it's pretty ambiguous to have two-different levels of area listed identically. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 22:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclone Hudhud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cyclone Hudhud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Passed. DDMS123 (talk) 04:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Hudhud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: HurricaneZeta (talk · contribs) 00:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DDMS123 (talk · contribs) 02:01, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Overall the prose is good. One minor issue is that in the "Meteorological history" section, the units used are "mbar" whereas the sources use HPA. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The page mostly follows the manual of style. However, sentences should not start with numbers per MOS:NUMNOTES and MOS:ORDINAL. There are a few sentences in "Preparations", "Impact", and "Aftermath" sections where this has been done. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) References are included. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) Reliable sources cited in line. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No original research. Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No problems here. Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Good Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Good Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Neutral Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Stable. No recent edit warring. Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Good - Images are either in public domain or used with permission. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Image captions are appropriate. Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Once the minor issues relating to prose and manual of style are addressed, I'll be happy to pass this article. - All have been addressed.

Discussion

[edit]

FYI, mbar and hPa are equivalent to each other. HurricaneZetaC 02:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

icon Working on the sentences starting with numbers HurricaneZetaC 02:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your prompt reply. Also thank you for the clarification regarding mbar and hPa. DDMS123 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DDMS123, no problem! I finished fixing them up (and the mbar and hPa thing is a conversion, so WP:CALC), so if you've finished a source spot check it should be good to go. HurricaneZetaC 02:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HurricaneZeta - Thanks for that. I guess I'll pass this article. DDMS123 (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool.js to automate it HurricaneZetaC 02:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just passed it and everything.
Well Done! DDMS123 (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
  • ... that Cyclone Hudhud shattered glass throughout the city of Visakhapatnam? Source: Janyala, Sreenivas (13 October 2014). "Cyclone Hudhud hits Andhra Pradesh, leaves a trail of destruction". The Indian Express. Archived from the original on 4 December 2025. Retrieved 4 December 2025.
Improved to Good Article status by HurricaneZeta (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

HurricaneZetaC 02:58, 14 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

References

ALT4: ... that Cyclone Hudhud destroyed 70% of the trees in Visakhapatnam? Source: Dileep, P. S. (14 October 2014). "Cyclone Hudhud: Visakhapatnam Stripped of 70 Percent of Green Cover". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 14 December 2025.
ALT5: ... that Cyclone Hudhud caused a 60% decrease in the population of birds in Visakhapatnam? Source: Gilai, Harish (26 April 2015). "60 Per Cent Decline in Bird Species in Vizag Post-Hudhud". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 14 December 2025.
[4] might also be of interest, but it also seems trivial enough to not include in the article. Additionally, [5] is mostly a prediction of what will happen, and I found but haven't looked into [6]. HurricaneZetaC 00:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]