Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [1].

1991 Atlantic hurricane season

edit

1991 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like collecting stars and rewards... no, that doesn't work.

I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make WP:100K happen! Eh... that's kinda dead.

I am nominating this for featured article because I worked on it a lot last month and it's part of a featured topic I'm working on and I really like it and I found some neat info on the season and I got some favorable responses to it and I hope you like it too! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note - Since Hurricanehink has indicated that he is going to be busy over the next few days preparing for Hurricane Irene myself and other project members will keep an eye on this FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jason, I should be good now since the storm damage wasn't bad here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for ACE section? The table is linked to this page, which lists no sources
  • Ref 9: publisher? Also, check dash use in this and similar titles
  • Ref 25: do we know full names?
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include publishers for newspapers
  • What is WFO?
  • Ref 74: formatting
  • Ref 76: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got ref 9, 25, 74 (I believe, I changed the author to publisher), and 76. As for the newspapers, they should be consistent. That one, I just made a mistake with the cite web/news. I believe I always do author and newspaper, with the agency when possible (usually AP). I also clarified the WFO. As for the ACE... yea, it isn't really sourced by a good source. I personally hate the section and believe it violates Wiki policy by having it in there (due to lack of sourcing anywhere that proves those storms had those individual amounts), and I would be happy to remove it. However, others claim it falls under the routine calculation portion of WP:OR. If you (and anyone else) wouldn't mind not opposing over that single section, I will bring up a discussion on this to find clarity on the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds of lousy humor... aside from that, some comments:
  • As of late I've been more critical of wikilinking practices, so I've been pushing for more judicious use of links. In the first two sentences, which should IMO be self-sufficient (we don't want users wandering away two seconds after they reach the page), you link tropical cyclone, North Atlantic tropical cyclone, and hurricane season, which all seem to overlap to an extent, and I think if I were a newcomer to the topic I'd be overwhelmed.
  • I find it slightly disconcerting that the lead bounces from Danny and Erika and back to Bob. I guess it doesn't have to be chronologically ordered, but I'm wondering why the very first paragraph deals with storms that didn't affect anyone, but the second paragraph covers the damaging storms... I think it should be the other way around, myself.
    • Actually, that was deliberate. I thought the most notable storms should get their own paragraph. Danny and Erick were lame storms, so they're more of an afterthought after the introduction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, there were four non-developing tropical depressions, of which one, the second, struck land and dropped heavy rainfall. - first, "of which one, the second" is hard to parse, and second, where did it strike? I'd like a general region.
  • After brushing the Outer Banks of North Carolina and Long Island in New York - I don't see why those shouldn't be consistent.
    • Well, per Google, it's more common to say "Outer Banks of North Carolina", but "Long Island in New York". I didn't plan it that way, though. I just thought it sounded more natural, since Outer is describing something not quite "in" North Carolina. I didn't care either way about Long Island. Seeing as you're a New Yorker (stater), would you prefer "in" or "of' for NY? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • was most notable for providing the energy - I think this is kind of shaky wording; explicitly forcing that X "was most notable" for N usually disrupts prose flow in my experience.
  • It later transitioned into an unnamed hurricane - meteorologically, it transitioned into a regular hurricane, and it was our (the NHC's) decision not to name it... I think you should remove "unnamed" here.

Juliancolton (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:'
  • "ACE is only calculated for full advisories on tropical systems at or exceeding 34 knots (39 mph, 63 km/h) or tropical storm strength." - I though knots is against project standards.
  • A majority of the ACE section is unsourced.
  • There is still no reference for the ACE values. Someone on here once told me that without a source for the ACE values, it could be considered WP:OR.

--12george1 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - supplies all the information I'd want to know. The ACE issue doesn't bother me, since I believe we're close to reaching an agreement on it. I do have one concern with the Perfect Storm section: The origins of the unnamed hurricane also known as the Perfect Storm. The unnamed hurricane developed as the Perfect Storm nor'easter was fizzling, so "also known as" doesn't really work. Other than that, excellent work! Juliancolton (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the FAC arena, and I do not have much time to work, so I will focus on prose nitpicks. If any of my comments run against the spirit of what a featured article should be, feel free to call me out on it.

  • In the Lead: Can you wikilink "tropical wave"? It is a term that isn't clear to outsiders (like me), and it would be helpful.
  • In the Lead: "developed from a tropical wave, which are the source" - which is the source?
  • In the Lead: "Erika passed through the Azores" - better phrased as "Erika passed over the Azores"? After all, it is in the sky (well, mostly). You phrased it like this later, when Hurricane Ana formed over the Bahamas.
    • Well, literally, the Bahamas and Azores refer to the land itself, but a tropical cyclone is a system that extends from the ground into the atmosphere, so technically it does go over the areas, as well as "through". I changed a few so there is some varied wording, but I kept some at "over". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the comment involving the lesser storms and then the greater storms in the lead...I do find the fact that it is not chronological rather strange, granted the article is laid out in a chronological manner. However, I do find it easier to understand in the way it is currently done, and I like that that the stuff that really matters is agglomerated into one.
  • In the Storm summary section: " calling for eight tropical storms" - I don't think "calling for" is the write phrasing. This isn't quite a recipe. :P
  • In the Storm summary section: "However, a further revision" - better phrased as "a later revision"? It sounds awkward to me.
  • In the Perfect storm section: Both Andrea Gail and The Perfect Storm (the movie wikilink) should be italicized.

Probably the most significant comment I have is that I'd prefer to see jargon (like Cape Verde-type hurricane, for example) defined in the article. I like situations like the Metallicity section of the featured article on the star Tau Ceti, which actually defines metallicity and its relevance to astronomy before even delving into how it relates to Tau Ceti itself. To go into such detail really helps dumb things down for the layperson (again, an outsider like me), and helps people to fully understand the topic.

I apologize that this is not much; I will examine the article more if time permits, but I cannot give guarantees. Hope this helps. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review—I tried to address your points. As for having separate sections for meteorological terms: in some cases this is possible (e.g. explaining what a major hurricane is), but in some cases, we have very long and detailed articles already (e.g. tropical cyclogenesis) that adequately cover the main topic, IMO. That said, I'll give a technical jargon review to the article shortly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yep, you did. Good job. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Bodnotbod's review with reference to FA criteria: SUPPORT *Judgement: Weak oppose due to reasons given below, with view to every intention of supporting at some later date.

  • Judgement: Support (issues listed below resolved to my satisfaction).
    • Quote: "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his annual forecast for the season, which he had issued since 1984." An amusing interpretation of this sentence is that he issues the same report every year like some very lazy expert ;O) Can it be reworded? Perhaps "...forecast for the season, he had been issuing forecasts since 1984."
    • Quote: "Virginia recorded more than 5 in (130 mm)." If this is how such statements are always worded, that's fine. But I had to read it twice, because I read the abbrev. for inches as the word "in", leaving me momentarily thinking "five what?".
    • Quote: "no significant developed occurred until it became Tropical Depression Two". Presumably "development" should replace "developed" here?
    • Quote: "One person died in both North and South Carolina". Again, this could be misinterpreted as if it's one guy who happened to be standing astride the border, it feels a little clumsy. Maybe "There were two fatalities; one in North Carolina, one in South Carolina."
    • Quote: "In addition, there were 15 fatalities in the country." Probably doesn't need "in the country". We can appreciate that the fatalities are where the hurricane is, so I think "In addition, there were 15 fatalities." is sufficient.
    • Quote: " In portions of New England, damage was worse than what occurred from Hurricane Bob two months prior." I think "than had occurred" would be better than "what occurred".
    • Comment: In my browser the article causes a horizontal scroll-bar to appear. I think one of the templates at the bottom of the article is causing it. It's not a deal breaker but it would be good if it can be fixed. When I do actually scroll horizontally it doesn't appear that anything extra is revealed to me, so I can't see that scrolling should be necessary.
    • Criteria 1 (a) which reads: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"
  • Professional but dull at times. I struggled to remain engaged with the article. I'm only human so I naturally found the storms that caused damage to be more interesting than the weather events that drifted about a bit but caused no human drama. So I was engaged when learning that GWB's house had suffered damage, but for those tropical storms that were uneventful I did find it hard to keep my attention on what I was reading. However, does this mean I'm calling for change? I'm not sure I am. The cost of just telling us the exciting bits would be that the article would be less complete and we are aiming for comprehensive coverage of the topic. So I guess I accept that were I more of a 'hurricane person' then I would want to know about the less eventful storms too.
  • Honestly, and I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a cop-out, but that's because the storms were that boring. Only two of them (Bob and the Perfect Storm) were remotely interesting in terms of human impact. Fabian was a joke, and if Danny and Erika had never formed, no one would have ever known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criteria 1 (b) which reads "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • Good, I trust. I'm not qualified to say, so I have to place my trust in the editors(s). I'm happy to do that on this occasion.
    • Criteria 1 (c) which reads "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;"
  • Great. No complaints here.
    • Criteria 1 (d) which reads "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;"
  • No issues. Not the sort of article that would suffer from issues on this score, perhaps.
    • Criteria 1 (e) which reads "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
  • Excellent. No sign of issues here, having checked the history of the article over the last year.
    • Criteria 2(a) which reads "a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;"
  • Excellent
    • Criteria 2(b) which reads "appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;"
  • Excellent: takes a chronological approach which makes perfect sense. Easy to find individual storms/hurricanes if one wishes.
    • 2(c) consistent citations
  • Defer to others - I believe other reviewers have looked the citations over, so I'll not address those.
    • Criteria 3 which reads "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."
  • Pass - Images seem to be from some institute, and I assume they are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.
    • Criteria 4 which reads "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
  • Pass - Article is concise and has links to other main articles for the more eventful storms.
    • Closing comment: Definitely a good article. Still feel it's held back by a) rather uninspiring descriptions of some non-events and b) lack of inspiration not helped by some hurricane jargon. Let's look at the Claudette section as an example. It contains the following quotes: "area of convection", "system became organized", "low wind shear and a large anticyclone allowing for the development of outflow", "weakening trend", "tropical depression status", "became extratropical". These are all rather opaque to me. However, as previously said, I'm not sure if it would be right to try and change things for the sake of the general reader as it risks making the article less useful for those with hurricane knowledge. It's a dilemma.
      • Yea, that's usually a dilemma, and we try to make it useful for non-hurricane readers. Claudette was one of the sections I didn't write from scratch when I did the rest of the article, so I did a bit of a rewrite. I'm not sure if that's better now, but I changed some of the wording and terminology. However, for some of the terms, they are explained and/or linked previously in the article on their first instance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Signing off: --bodnotbod (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (PS, HurricaneHink, maybe now you can see why it takes me more than 10 minutes to do a review ;O)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1991_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1086103771"