Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Gloria

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Hurricane Gloria

edit

Self-nom in behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This article has gone through an assessment by the WikiProject's editors and a peer review afterwards, and we believe it meets all the FA criteria now. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional support - Looks fantastic. Just please put when you last accessed those webpages to use them as references. Something like (viewed 25 March 2006) after the link. --mav 00:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is so good it speaks for itself. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit-Conflict Support - I've made an effort to expand the lead to make it more suitable. Otherwise, it looks good. Might want to convert the citations to {{cite web}}, though. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 30 March 2006 @ 00:36 (UTC)
  • Oppose The picture on the infobox (and as such, the first that people see) is right before the second landfall. At that point Gloria was quite weak (as you can see from the sheer evident in the photo, and the eye losing its definition to the south). The established convention to to use photos that show the storm at peak intensity. I'll gladly change to support once the image at the top of the article is switched -Mask   17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I agree. The picture is from the storm's most damaging landfall. I don't believe there's any wikiproject policy on using peak-strength photos versus landfall photos; there is a brief discussion here but it's not covered. However, I do think it's a problem that there is no peak-strength visible-light photo anywhere in the article; there is room for another picture in the storm history and this one should be added. — jdorje (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Talk:Tropical Storm Delta (2005) and Talk:Tropical Storm Gamma (2005) both have discussions on them to dump 'dying' pics for ones at peak intensity. Talk:Hurricane_Beta_(2005) has NSLE saying specifically "we should use one at peak intensity, if possible". Plus, it's just confusing for the box to be labeled Category 4 and show something less. -Mask   22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's actually quite a dramatic photo of a mainland US landfall. And, keep in mind, this is 1985. We didn't have all of the sophisticated satellite imaging systems that we have today. The Monthly Weather Review has a picture of it near peak intensity but it's black and white, grainy and a pdf. It also doesn't give a sense of its surroundings, i.e what's in its path. This picture is over all quite impressive. I, for one, sure as hell wouldn't want to be in the way of that thing. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But both of those discussions are comparing two different open-sea photographs, not an open-sea with a landfall photograph. As I said I'm not aware of any precedent for open-sea peak-strength versus landfall photographs. — jdorje (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 2 out of 3 of those made landfall... check the pages. -Mask   00:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of those discussions covers this issue. They're only looking for a better at-sea pic. The Beta discussion could have gotten into it, but the Beta pic is from peak strength and just before landfall so the discussion doesn't go anywhere. Looking at articles for recent storms, Hurricane Frances, Hurricane Ivan, Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, and Hurricane Emily (strong storms that weakened before landfall) all show peak-strength images. Hurricane Katrina is the only exception; it shows a weakening (still Cat5) storm shortly before landfall. None of these storms has any discussion of the issue, though, so although I'll grant that there is precedent I think we are the first to discuss the choice of at-sea versus landfall images. In general I would prefer landfall images unless they are significantly worse than the at-sea images, but I may be in the minority here. However in the case of Gloria we may not really have the decision to make, since (as discussed at Talk:Hurricane Gloria) there are no good peak-strength images available. — jdorje (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a major contributor of it. Hurricanehink 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Excellent job on this one. WotGoPlunk 22:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard not to support this article. It thoroughly covers the subject, is well laid out and gives readers a good overall grasp of this hurricane, which isn't nearly as famous as the other hurricane FAs. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've gotta support this one. Looks nice. Fieari 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry to be so picky, but the last paragraph of the "New England" section needs to be verified. Where does the 7 come from? The source says at the bottom, "Gloria was responsible for a total of eight deaths in the United States. Two persons were killed in Connecticut, two were killed in Rhode Island, and one each in New York and New Hampshire." So there's discrepancy there as well. This should be addressed before getting FA status. Otherwise though, nice work. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support One of the best tropical cyclone articles out there. Omni ND 22:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Support per my concerns being dealt with in the article. -Mask   22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Gloria&oldid=1248725489"