# Talk:1996 North Indian Ocean cyclone season

... which, according to the article record caused "widespread flooding and over 1,000 casualties". Having been in the very center of it, and having seen the destruction, I'd say that is underestimated. 
I'm from Europe, not from India. I've experienced some strong storms back home, but none, not even Kyrill, was anywhere near as wild as 7B. I was in India as a commissioning engineer for the GVK Jegurupadu Power Plant in Kadiam. The power plant was heavily damaged by 7B, and the whole area was devastated. Houses, trees, everything was stomped, and countless people died. (Nobody cares much about a few hundred poor dead people in this rural area.)
Today I was surprised to find out that somebody keeps track of storms in this area, and that "my" storm is ranked pretty high. Brought up some bad memories. :/ --Tetris L (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says 02A hit Somalia, but the track map shows that it hit Oman. Which one is correct?--UltimateDarkloid (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 North Indian Ocean cyclone season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) 11:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Dropping a note that I'll be reviewing this article shortly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 11:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

General
Made some minor copyedits here and there, generally for typographical errors.
Why do you include JTWC designations in the section headers for some storms but not others?
Not intentional. It was that way before I started working on the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You have the acronyms for IMD and JTWC in the lede, and the IMD again in the season summary section but not the JTWC. Should just move the explanation of what the agencies are to the lede and have the acronyms thereafter. Saves unnecessary repetition.
Done as suggested. Hope that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Lede
The damage total of "$1.9596 billion (1996 USD)" in the infobox seems a bit hyper specific. Maybe round it to $1.96 billion (I'll leave this up to you).
If I remember math class correctly, we have to go by significant digits. As the Oman cyclone caused $1.2 billion, we have to round it to the hundred millions, meaning the damage total should be rounded to $1.9 billion. It's possible it was closer to the $2 billion, but the $1.2 billion was obviously rounded, so it would be incorrect rounding to be too specific or to round to $2 billion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, $1.9 billion it is. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the end of October... – Is it "in the end" or "at the end"?
At. You're right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Season summary
The IMD also tracked nine tropical disturbances... – Wording is misleading and reads as if they monitored 9 disturbances on top of the 8 monitored by the JTWC. Should restructure this paragraph to emphasize the IMD stats first, too.
True. I removed "also" and put IMD first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Severe Tropical Cyclone ARB 01
The storm turned northward and slowly weakened, degenerating into a remnant low over Rajasthan on June 20 before being swept up by an approaching trough – Why no mention of the JTWC continuing the system until June 25?
JTWC was weird. They said "JTWC issued the final warning valid at 191200Z, as TC 04A dissipated inland. I opted not to go to the end of the JTWC track, as I thought the ending that the IMD provided was sufficient (that it was swept up by the trough). I didn't know how to include the JTWC data while explaining the ending properly to the laymen (that the period up to the 25th might've been a tropical disturbance, not a depression). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess without proper clarification from them we can't really do anything else without impinging on WP:OR. Leaving it as-is should be fine, then. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a few minor issues here and there, should be a quick fix. Placing the article on hold accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, hope my replies make sense! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Everything looks good now, passing the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)