Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Allison/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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

Tropical Storm Allison

Notified: Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, Hurricane Noah, Jason Rees, WP Tropical Cyclones, WP Weather, WP USA, WP Houston, WP New York (state) first noticed back in May

Review section

As noted on the article's talk page by me and Hurricane Noah, this article relies almost exclusively on contemporaneous reports, with only three or four of the sources being from more than a year after the storm occurred. As noted on the talk page, there is also some scholarly work over this storm, which is not included. Hog Farm _Talk 03:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH to be resolved, why is See also so large, and starting CCI check on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - minimal engagement, and still almost completely reliant on contemporaneous reports. Hog Farm _Talk 14:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - insufficient engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I wrote the article 15 years ago. I know it could be a lot better now, and I don't intend to do the work to improve it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC Since fixes aren't occurring. Noah^Talk 13:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question What big gaps are there outside of the copyright questions? I see some 20 year retrospectives, but not a ton of coverage to check to see if there are any big changes --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Guerillero - There are some sources linked on the article's talk page. I won't be able to discuss the sources in more depth until I get back to my computer in a day or two though. Hog Farm _Talk 17:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hog Farm: No worries. This just looked like low hanging fruit. I wish I could get wikicup points for this, but c'est la vie. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style (and noting attribution issues mentioned on talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to the standing issues raised above. Noah^Talk 18:32, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything substantive that merits including from said scholarly work? Demotion over that alone seems excessive if the net effect it has on the article is small. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 08:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot related to meteorology, impact, and aftermath here plus I believe Hog Farm mentioned more on the article's talk page, however, I haven't checked through any of those. Noah^Talk 13:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hog Farm mentioned that he is traveling right now for the New Years’ weekend, so maybe hold on to hear from him; I believe he has journal access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Mostly) back in the saddle for the rest of the week; noting I've seen this and will take a deeper look into this once I've got caught up on a couple other things. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay gang, sorry I didn't get around to this earlier, but I'll give a quickie starter run before I go out of state. Going through the sources listed on talk:

This has some additional details about the affects on the TX transportation/infrastructure system, and gives different rainfall figures for Houston than the article seems to (although our article only gives totals for selected points)

can't access

can't access, but hopefully somebody can (try WP:RSX?). Our content about the damage to the Texas Medical Center is sourced to a commercial report produced within a year of the storm; a posthumous diagnosis would be a vast sourcing improvement there, as the current source is heavily reliant on soon after the fact estimates

This book devotes an entire chapter to the effects in Texas and refers to very heavy rainfall on June 8 as the "knockout punch", while our article doesn't seem to give much importance to the 8th, specifies that the floodwaters were 10 feet deep in Texas at times, and it disputes the claim of "and one in an elevator" stating that while this was initially suggested, it's since been suggested she didn't make it to the elevator. It also states that Houston University lost $35 million in library books, which seems significant, as well.

this discusses the use of radar and a flood alert system in tracking the storm, which doesn't seem to be included

I can only get the abstract for this, but it seems to discuss disease problems in the storm's aftermath and looks MEDRS; likely worth a RSX try

I'm not sure which sources Hurricane Noah thought most significant from their search link; hopefully they can take a further look at that. What I'm really seeing here is that this article relies very heavily on sources almost contemporaneous to the storm, and the two decades since have provided a better perspective of what is significant about this storm. I'm mainly finding sources for the Texas effects, but that seems to have been some of the most impactful stuff. There's definitely chunks of sourcing that can/should be replaced by more recent stuff that has a better perspective. This isn't my region of expertise, so others may know of additional useful sources. @SandyGeorgia, Yellow Evan, and Guerillero: Hog Farm _Talk 06:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm In the ones I linked, I saw similar sources, including ones for LA as well such as (not exclusive) this. I had seen additional meteorological ones such as [2] and [3] (check for more). Overall, google scholar has a decent amount worth investigating. Noah^Talk 20:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, issues by Hog Farm and Noah unaddressed, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - This is a good example of the difference between GA sourcing and FA sourcing. The sourcing here is just lacking in several places. Hog Farm _Talk 14:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.