Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Carol/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 Ian Rose 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hurricane Carol

edit

Hurricane Carol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC) --12george1 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Hurricane Carol was a hell of a storm. There's a wicked bad stawm up in New England soon, but Carol was a bad one back in the 50's, in fact one of two storms to hit New England in a two week period in 1954. So it's an important storm, and after a lot of work (with some assistance from User:12george1, who I have invited to be a co-nominator), I believe the article is a great representation on the event, including the hurricane's track and what it did. Hope you enjoy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your invitation, Hurricanehink. This will be a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Hurricane Carol was among the worst tropical cyclones to affect the New England region of the United States." -- Ever or on record?
  • "On August 27, Carol intensified to reach winds of 105 mph (169 km/h), but weakened as its motion turned to a northwest drift." -- 169 km/h needs to be rounded. In the second sentence you say it was moving northwest, but in this one you say it turned to the northwest. Confusing.
  • "A strong trough of low pressure turned the hurricane northeastward, and Carol intensified into a major hurricane." -- The wording of this sentence suggests that the trough prompted the system to intensify into a major hurricane, which I do not believe is the case here.
  • "While paralleling the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States, the storm produced strong winds and rough seas caused minor coastal flooding and slight damage to houses in North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Delaware, and New Jersey." -- Caused to causing
  • "Storm surged flooded LaGuardia Airport and inundated Montauk Highway, which left the eastern portion of Long Island isolated." -- Surge, not surged.
  • "Following the storm, Carol was retired, becoming the first name to be stricken from the naming lists in the Atlantic basin." -- I personally don't like the usage of "stricken". How about removed or something more generic?
  • "It moved to the northwest, and intensified into a tropical storm just six hours after forming" -- No need for a comma.
  • "With a large anticyclone persisting across the southeastern United States,[3] the motion of Carol turned to a northwest drift." -- Same as my second comment. You can't start northwest and then turn northwest."
  • "Early on August 31, Carol passed very near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina with Reconnaissance Aircraft intensity estimates between 75 mph (120 km/h) to 125 mph (200 km/h)." -- Comma after Carolina, and I believe it should be "between 75 mph (120 km/h) AND 125 mph (200 km/h)."
  • "The hurricane continued north-northeastward with a forward motion of up to 39 mph (63 km/h),[2] and Carol intensified further to make landfall on eastern Long Island as an upper Category 2 or a Category 3 hurricane" -- Surely the database lists one or the other. Did it make landfall as a 2 or 3?
  • "After quickly crossing the Long Island Sound the hurricane made its final landfall on Old Saybrook, Connecticut." -- Comma after Sound?
  • "Carol was a small hurricane, with the strongest winds near and to the east of the center. The eye remained well-defined as it made landfall, unusual for New England hurricane landfalls; residents in Groton, Connecticut reported clear skies and calm conditions as the hurricane made landfall, which was followed by an increase to hurricane-force winds 30 minutes later." -- What's the purpose of these two sentences?
  • "The powerful extratropical storm continued northward, and after entering Canada it lost its identity over southern Quebec." --> "The powerful extratropical storm continued northward, and after entering Canada, lost its intensity over southern Quebec."

Maybe more to come later, this is the lede and Meteorological history. All in all, though, not too bad. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I replied to each. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. just some cleanup needed:

  • Oppose 1c. I'm not too concerned about the Cotterly references. If his work is good enough for NOAA to recommend, I'll take it here. But I'm certain we can do better than the Grammatico Geocities reference. For one thing, I don't think his biography really places him as a substantive expert in the field (to wit: I don't think he's notable himself), and so I'm a little hesitant to greenlight his Geocities page as reliable by extension, especially at the FA level. That's the definition of material without editorial control. But more to the point, this really was a historic storm system, and there's a lot of literature on the topic. This article leans on that Geocities reference 10 times, and much or all of the claims it supports can be cited elsewhere. Is there really no better source to say that Carol's storm surge covered Montauk highway (what about this) or that the storm largely spared western Connecticut (perhaps page 181 here), for example? A truly comprehensive review of the topic could probably improve on even those sources, the result of < 5 minutes of searching. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I fought to keep the link above, I sorta changed my mind. I fixed your two replacement suggestions above. I will look for ways to remove the remaining 10 usages later.--12george1 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My next few days look like they might be a little thin on time, but I'll see if I can help a little. If possible, I'd also like to see the Cotterly references replaced. I won't oppose the candidacy if they're still there, but I do think we can do better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should note, I'm pretty swamped in real life (playing music for three musicals at once, oy...) but I should be freer after Saturday. I hope it won't be a problem if wait until then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I managed to cut down to only five usages the Grammatico reference. However, I cannot find a replacement for the remaining five usage. Additionally, I am thinking the Grammatico reference can be considered a reliable source. The fact that the webpages are on Geocities is somewhat irrelevant. It is that Michael Grammatico is reliable. As I said above "Michael holds a degree in Physical Geography, with a specialization in Climatology from Central Connecticut State University. Michael has held several positions in climate research and natural hazards, including consulting scientific advisor for the Office of Insurance Services." Due to his work and education, I believe Grammatico publications are reliable.--12george1 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree. I'm trying to lend a hand here; I've replaced one all but one and a half of the remaining Grammatico references with a Department of Commerce publication already various better things. Furthermore, I'll note that DoC report quoted a different figure for the wind gusts recorded on Long Island than Grammatico did. I've edited the figure (and swapped from manual conversion to the convert template, which really should be used throughout instead of just sometimes) to the more reliable value. Frankly, I see no reason why Grammatico should be considered authoritative whatsoever. He has an unspecified degree from a small college, some weather-related jobs in the insurance industry, and zero scholarly publications. He's simply not a recognized expert in this field. I'm certain that he's passionate about the subject, and put a lot of work into his hurricane website, but it's still a self-published source with no editorial oversight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think I can do any more with this tonight. There's a claim about the normal behavior of hurricane eyes in New England storms that is almost certainly true, but needs a citation. I've marked it citation needed; it was previously referenced to Grammatico's Geocities page, and while I fixed the other half of that statement, I didn't have time to do that one as well. There's still one other use of that page remaining; I can't find an exact replacement for it, but it should be possible to get the point across with something somewhere else. Meanwhile, someone else with a better eye for brilliant prose should due a read-through to review overall writing quality; I've removed some redundancies and tweaked wordings as I've been adjusting refs, which makes me suspect that's more than can be improved. Regardless of cause, if this FAC winds up getting archived, I'd honestly like to see the Cotterly refs replaced, too. Those are closer to being the work of an established expert; I won't oppose for them, but this article could do better. I'd also like to see more consistent use of the convert template over manual unit conversion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • I note Rschen's query re. "well-organized" and it also sounds very odd to my ear. If it's a meteorological expression, okay, but that doesn't help the general reader.
  • There are a few duplicate links to review -- you can use this script to check them.
  • Squeamish, Hink, are we getting close to resolving the issue above?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • First, yea, "well-organized" is a very common meteorological term. There are 22,000 links under NOAA that include that term. If it's a huge deal, I can remove it, but I like that it describes the storm's well-defined structure. Secondly, wow, I love that tool! That is so useful for checking for redundant links. I can't believe I never had it before. And third, yea, the above issue with the Grammatico link should be addressed. I talked to him on his talk page about it, so hopefully he gets back here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for the slow turnaround time on this. I've had an unfortunate situation to deal with offline. With Grammatico gone, I'm striking the 1c objection. I'm okay with the conversion template/non-template issue as well, based on the explanation above. I wasn't able to do a thorough prose review, but a quick scan this evening doesn't reveal anything significantly amiss, and I don't want to stand in the way of this further. Amedning to support. (Also, in my opinion, "well-organized" is fine; several of our FA tropical storm articles use the term, and it has wide currency in the field. Honestly, it could probably be an article topic eventually...) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No prob, thanks for getting back! (hopefully that situation is dealt with - I've been busy myself offline) As for well-organized, I could probably link to here, if that helps? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heh, perhaps there should be a line on the term in the Wiktionary definition of "organized"... That link didn't seem to spell it out too clearly and might confuse people more -- if it's commonly used in hurricane articles on WP then I think we can live with it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not actually getting around to review the article... as far as the sourcing, if consensus is that the two sources I noted above are reliable, then that's fine with me; I wasn't sure however, and it seems like those particular sources haven't been discussed before. --Rschen7754 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Geocities source was determined not to be reliable, but all of its uses have been replaced. The Cotterly source is self-published, but NOAA includes it in a list of recommended resources, so I, at least, am willing to concede to its inclusion (if NOAA thinks it's reliable on the topic, who are we to argue?). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[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/Hurricane_Carol/archive1&oldid=1086353607"