Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Floyd/archive1
- 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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:03, 5 January 2010 [1].
Review commentary
edit| Toolbox |
|---|
This was promoted in early 2006, when it did meet the FA criteria. For such a difficult storm, it is still a very good article to this day—but it is lacking in some areas. More specifically:
- The Meteorological history section is far too brief, and it makes use of basically only one source. There are dozens of advisories from the National Hurricane Center on the storm that could be incorporated.
- The Preparations largely ignores North Carolina, which is where the storm made landfall. Also, there are two paragraphs missing citations.
- Although the Impact section is acceptable in some areas, it contains several unsourced statements and is not in any way complete. For example, it gives only one sentence of information to the storm's effects in New York.
- There is little if any information on the aftermath of the storm. Ideally, the article should cover post-storm assistance, rebuilding efforts, cleanup, etc.
- Major MoS issues throughout.
- Very few references to reports and documents on the hurricane.
For these reasons I don't think this article meets the criteria, unfortunately. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please add alt text to images; see Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. Eubulides (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images All OK except File:Floyd flood map.jpg. Is this really a NASA image in the public domain? It's labelled as "Courtesy Dartmouth Flood Laboratory" at the source, and though DFO is partly funded by NASA, it also has other funding sources and claims copyright on its homepage [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
edit- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist — Lots of problems as Julian points out. No work is being undertaken to rectify this. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Troubled Remove, citations are lacking, but frankly, it troubles me that Hurricane members haven't undertaken to improve this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, per Julian's comments. Almost nothing has been done on the article since the FAR was initiated. Citations are lacking, and there are several dead links that need to be fixed. ALT text is still missing. It is too bad that the TC WP members aren't stepping up to help, as with their resources I don't think it would take all that much time. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.