Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

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

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

2003 Pacific hurricane season

edit
Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones, talk page notification 2021-04-16

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to current FA standards. It has some entirely unsourced sections, other unsourced text, mostly relies on a single primary source (National Hurricane Center), and in general is quite short and lacking in comprehensive analysis. CMD (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The storm sections are definitely a bit short, but it's not that different structure wise from other FA's. It's not the articles fault that most of the storms affected land and the overall sourcing distribution is similar to other articles. The unsourced bits can be addressed easily as the same references are used in other articles. I do think the seasonal summary section could be beffed up but for something promoted 15 years ago, it's pretty decent I'd say. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - As FAR nominator, how does the progress look? There's been some work, but it looks like the names section is still unsourced, as is the damages section. I'm also concerned that the damages material is a bit contradictory at times - For instance, the table states that Olaf affected both Texas and Mexico, and had "minimal" damage, while the prose describes severe flooding that affected thousands of homes, but makes no mention of TX. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It still doesn't look up to scratch, with (what I presume is) the low-hanging fruit not dealt with. Regarding comparisons to other FAs as mentioned above, my reference was 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which went through FAR in 2020. Even in the case there's not as much to say for this article as there is for that one in Seasonal forecasts and Seasonal summary, the Storm names and Season effects sections are areas this article should match. CMD (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The last edit to the article was September 26. @Yellow Evan: are you finished with fixing up this article? If so, post here and others (like me) will review the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no improvements since September 26, as mentioned two weeks ago by Z1720. FAR strives to keep nominations open as long as possible, particularly when work is ongoing, but several current FARs are stretching the limits of that generosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - would you be able to take another look at this, to see if your concerns are still outstanding? Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see @Yellow Evan: did some more work on 11/2, although a skim reveals some issues to me, as well. There are prose issues such as "Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was $100 million.[45] Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was estimated at $100 million" appearing in the Marty section, the predictions table does not seem to be fully sourced, the various low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere, and some other issues. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fails 1f (although still fixable I believe with attribution). CCI checks on talk: I found very minor amounts of copying within Wikipedia when the structure of the article was being set up. I ran several Earwig checks on the diffs when bulk of text was added (Tom and Nilfanion), comparing the archive.org versions of the sources with the text as inserted (in the article before it was copyedited at FAC), and found no too-close paraphrasing or copyvio. I queried the CCI people on the talk page of the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones as to whether this minor CWW needs to be noted on talk with a template. It looks pretty clean to me, but still learning the CCI ropes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on talk, so while I found no problems prior to the FAC, unfortunately there has been unattributed copying within while the article has been at FAR. Yellow Evan, please read WP:CWW, in particular, the need for specific attribution in edit summary. Because that wasn't done, it is my understanding that the CCI people will have to add templates to the article talk page. Not an expert, I could be wrong on all of this, this is the first time I have done this kind of analysis. But please see WP:PATT, and be sure to add a hyperlink to the article name you are copying from in edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More on talk. Found at least one cut-and-paste inserted during the FAR, needs public domain attribution, too tired to look for the rest, but it needs to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: still waiting for CCI people to check my work. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update, I completed the CCI check here on talk, and have now added public domain attribution throughout and {{Copied}} templates for WP:CWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - Would you be able to take a look at this again? Yellow Evan - I've tagged an uncited spot with a CN. Hog Farm Talk 05:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That text was removed by DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the CCI work and believe the article is now 1f clear. Yellow Evan has not edited since December 3. @Chipmunkdavis and Hog Farm: how does this look to you now? If we aren't completely out of the woods yet, I will be entering a delist; we just can't do this much work on every WP:Cyclone article, particularly if the Project doesn't begin to do their own CCI cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most glaring issues have been dealt with. I will say it doesn't feel up to the par of the other recently saved ones, but unfortunately do not have time to go into detail on comprehensiveness at the moment. CMD (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think all my major quibbles have been dealt with, although I don't have a whole lot of subject-specific knowledge here. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, since you two are not unhappy, I will do a full read-through in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward, complete rewrite would help: The most notable cyclones during the year were Hurricanes Ignacio and Marty, which both struck the Baja California Peninsula as hurricanes and killed 2 and 12 people across the country.
    Now better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incorrect dashes on date ranges in table, eg May 19 – 25 … but since some other dates in the table do need a spaced endash, because they include Mon dd – Mon dd, why not make them all the same, for consistency?
    Sorry but I'm a little confused. Do you want me to remove the endashes or no? YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The dates in the table did not comply with MOS:DATERANGE. May 19 – 25 should be written May 19–25, or May 19 – May 25. There are two possibilities for fixing that: a) convert all dates to full Month day, year with a spaced endash (eg, August 28 – September 5), which would make the table consistent and conforming with MOS; or b) remove the spaces around the WP:ENDASH on those that occurred within the same month. If most of the hurricanes in that season had overlapped months, I would recommend option a. But only one did, so I instead implemented option b.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is generic info which differs from the actual dates (May 19 to October 26) in the Season effects table. The actual dates of this season seem more important for the lead than this generic info, which would seem to fit better in the Seasonal summary section. Either that, or rework the whole thing to include the actual storm dates (as in the table below) in the lead.
    The season officially started on May 15, 2003, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and on June 1, 2003, in the central Pacific, and lasted until November 30, 2003.[1] These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the northeastern Pacific Ocean.
    This generic info is standard for all articles so I'm inclined to leave it in but I'm not sure if it's a good standard myself. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be standard, but it still doesn't work :) It makes no sense to mention general info without also mentioning the specific to this season. I have added that.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that works really nicely. I'll use that sort of wording in the future, thank you! YE Pacific Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colloquial … The season saw 16 tropical storms form, of which 7 became hurricanes, which is about average. … how is about average different from average ? Higher, lower, what ?
    The terms are interchangeable as "about" isn't a scientific term. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejigged in same edit as above, [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flow in Seasonal forecasts is off, and there is no need for it to read like backwards proseline. The first May forecast foresaw low activity due to La Niña, explain La Niña effect, then the June forecast.
    I've reversed the order. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Further tweaks: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seasonal summary section has multiple instances of awkward or ungrammatical prose.
    However, there were no major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale); this was the first time this had happened in the eastern Pacific since 1977, and is well below the long-term average of four. … no contradiction (remove however), and the second clause is ungrammatical. —> For the first season since 1977, there were no major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale) in the eastern Pacific, where the long-term average is four hurricanes per season. … or something along those lines, although my version could be improved upon.
    I removed the Category 3 bit since it's already mentioned in the first sentence but otherwise, done. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked, [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index for the 2003 Pacific hurricane season was 53.4 units in the Eastern Pacific and 3.3 units in the Central Pacific. This value was within the top 10 least active seasons ever since reliable records began in 1971. … Also and additionally are almost always redundant— this one is. Top 10 ever is the same as top 10. —> The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index for the 2003 Pacific hurricane season, at 53.4 units in the Eastern Pacific and 3.3 units in the Central Pacific, placed the season among the 10 least active since reliable records began in 1971. … and it needs an as of date (is this fact still true almost two decades later?)
    Source is from 2020 and 2021 beat it out but sure. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked to reflect 2020: [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure 2021 will get automatically added pretty soon on that same link but this works for now. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping there, as it is not necessary to read through each storm to see this is not FA-level prose. Unless someone steps up to rewrite the lead and perform a thorough copyedit, it may be time to let this one go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best but I'm still noticing issues anytime I touch this myself, and I'm not super happy with the prose as is. I do appreciate you and others efforts to at least try to keep this going, however. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some further copyediting tweaks, so that the top and bottom of the article are now passable, but I see prose issues in every storm section. If you want to continue attempting to improve, and to keep the FAR open, please say so, and we can ask someone like Z1720 if they might copyedit. Otherwise, the prose is still not at FA level, so my Delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TropicalAnalystwx13 just did a large copyedit; TropicalAnalystwx13, what are your thoughts on FA status here? Is this saveable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I'm not experienced in writing FA-quality articles, I don't mind copyediting today and fixing some of the glaring prose issues I see. On its face, I think it should be salvageable unless there are some unknown issues lurking that I'm unaware of (something like missing impact information, which I haven't checked for yet). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TropicalAnalystwx13 please let this page know when you are done, and we can then re-ping reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I think the storm sections are much more aligned with common standards now. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, could you take another look? TropicalAnalystwx13 has copyedited now; is there content covered in sources that is missing? Z1720 might you opine on the prose? If Z and Noah are happy, I would strike my Delist (and ping back Hog Farm as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll take a look at it. However, my body is reacting badly to the COVID booster and RL stuff is getting busy, so I might be delayed in getting to this. Please ping me if I don't comment within a week. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will look at the prose tomorrow after I get off work. NoahTalk 23:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will get to the rest after the New Year's celebrations are over. NoahTalk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave the rest for a hurricane person. Stay home, stay safe, don't get COVID out there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dont see any other glaring prose issues. NoahTalk
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_review/2003_Pacific_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1063796902"