Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 05:44, 28 April 2009 [1].

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

edit

FAR commentary

edit

Wikiproject and author notified.
Just a forewarning, this could become a battleground, but I personally don't think the storm meets the FA criteria. I don't believe there are enough reliable, independent sources of information for the article. All of the content from the article stems directly from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (parent of the National Hurricane Center NHC), which I personally think violates WP:N. The guideline says an article should have a significant number of independent, reliable sources, but seeing as the content is directly from the NHC, I don't think it should count as independent. As for those newspaper sources that did report on the storm, well, Wikipedia is not WP:NEWS, as I could find no newspaper sources on the storm after it dissipated, nor any newspaper sources that didn't get their info from the NHC.

The last FAC was pretty split, and I know exactly what the nominator will say - he believes that all named tropical cyclones are inherently notable, which the WPTC recently disagreed with (although it is fairly split for storms 2000 to present). To summarize, the purpose of this review is to determine whether significant independent sources is passed when all of the content comes from the same source. FWIW, I'm more interested in seeing the opinion of other users that don't frequent his private IRC/Skype channel. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note for clarification. I totally forgot it was Easter (I don't celebrate it), and I honestly did not pick to do this FARC now while the primary author is on Wikibreak. I informed him last night on IRC that I would be doing this. However, I'd imagine he would be back tomorrow. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now on AFD. Let the shitstorm continue. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, in fact I think it is necessary. I knew we had one, but I couldn't remember his name. Ceranllama chat post 14:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I requested his input>. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I see the discussion has been heated on here, and will merely present to you all what I know about the input/output from the National Hurricane Center/National Weather Service concerning the creation and dissemination of tropical cyclone information. For systems where aircraft reconnaissance is not available (such as the eastern Pacific), satellite imagery is used to determine intensity, etcetera, using the Dvorak technique. That information is compiled with ATCF software into the invests and advisories that people within the TC wikiproject are familiar with. Those advisories are then picked up by the media (mainly wire services nowadays such as the Associated Press), which is occasionally carried by newspapers. It does seem false to declare an AP story concerning a tropical cyclone as a separate independent source, unless it contains additional quotes by people at the National Hurricane Center which are not contained within a tropical cyclone discussion; it's normally just a repetition of what comes from the original source, NHC. Indeed, National Weather Service offices must keep vigilant concerning media reports of damage during severe weather, since they normally just regurgitate our warnings, which can lead to the public calling the NWS giving us information which originated from....us! Hope this helps clarify the situation. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The storm was expected to move over cooler waters and become a remnant within the next few days, forecasters said. ?

Comment - Since Erick fails WP:N in the sense that the NHC are affiliated with the subject, and their are no independent sources (and theirs a dead link) i suggest that its FA star is taken away and the article is merged. Jason Rees (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NHC isn't affiliated with the subject in any way. They didn't create the storm, they simply tracked it. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it weren't for the NHC, there'd be no info on the storm. By naming it, they more or less created it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that? What about the SMN? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The SMN website says that they work with the NHC to issue warnings. Given that the intensities, dates, and whatnot are exactly the same as the NHC (actually, it uses operational data, making it less reliable as a source), I don't think it counts as being a source for info outside of the NHC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Independence is based on direct relationship with an individual or organization. A storm is a natural phenomena. There appears to be many sources, so Notability is not a concern. If more sources are needed, here are a few that can be found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (NASA satalites, not NOAA, mind you), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. Can't find more because of the holiday. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea? You found a bunch of sources that have exactly what the NHC has, meaning they either took it and didn't say where they got it from (which would be stealing, and thus unreliable), or several of them say they got it from the NHC. Some were blogs (#13 and #16 are identical), and a few didn't work for me. Aside from the NASA one (which is mainly just an image which we can't cite, and with info probably from the NHC), I don't think any of them have content that is actually independent of the NHC; that, as I said before, is why I don't think it has enough reliable sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just glancing through the sources, but it looks like the MSNBC source is good. THere are also sources from USA Today, CBS, and FEMA, which seems to be enough to indicate notability in my mind. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The MSNBC is from a wire service, which gets its information from what the NHC released to the public. Unless it affects shipping lanes, it is doubtful that any of these sources aren't entirely based on NHC products. Potapych (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am much more conservative than Hurricanehink with what I consider notable. Articles like this are almost certain to have one author, and we have to assume the validity of their interpretation of the source since few people actually read enough of these to check the facts. Articles are also supposed to be readable to casual viewers, so regurgitating every detail from the NHC report is probably too confusing for them. I don't like articles that document every single change in state (so that doesn't single out this article) because that is like trying to identify every single particle on the ground. I could understand this thing in one or two paragraphs just as well. Potapych (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • End the Crap - Hurricanehink has used a claim that all data comes from the same source. Guess what? That is a fail argument. All poetry articles about a poem have commentary on the same source. Most evidence comes from the same source. Independent groups discuss it in various ways. Its that simple. Notability has nothing to do with "newness" of information, and data is data. Hink, your continue pursuit against Julian's pages with this claim is unfounded and if you continue, I will put up a section on ANI asking you to be banned from participating in any related functions because you are causing a major disruption and going against core ideas at Wikipedia which would only damage the encyclopedia if anyone listened to you. Enough is enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ottava, I'd like you to end the crap as well, as you wouldn't be here if it weren't for your relationship with JC. I said I didn't really care what people on JC's private channel say, since I know they will all unquestioningly back their leader. For a poem, there is published literature that analyzes the poem, how certain aspects can reflect the author's life, etc. For a notable living person, there are widespread stories that reveal different angles of their life. For this tropical cyclone, there is only one source (two if you count the NASA satellite image) where people can find info. All other links that people find on it stem from the same place, which IMO does not make it notable. At this point, I really don't care if you post on ANI; you're already wasting my time by having to respond to you, so why not waste others' when I am not a major disruption? In the mean time, I'm interested in what people have to say about this article, that is, people who are not members of JC's club. Cheers, ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relationship with Julian? No, this has nothing to do with him. It has everything to do with you continuously gaming the system and trying to wreck Julian's work because it gets in the way of you getting more stars. Not only have you proven that you don't understand notability, you proved that you don't understand how sources are used properly. It doesn't matter -who- did the research, what matters is -who- interprets it. As I have put forth, there are many interpretations by various people. That alone proves that your claims are absurd. If you keep it up I will make sure you are topic banned before you destroy this encyclopedia anymore with your petty revenge tactics. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ..."JC's club"? Could you elaborate, please? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your private channel on IRC, and those people follow you on-wiki, back up up, look out for you, etc. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest, that is far from correct. It's not a private channel (Freenode staff idle there), and they won't back me up on-wiki. Now I'd appreciate if we could stop making false, off-topic assumptions. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then how come on two separate occasions, people from your channel (sorry, the channel named ##Juliancolton on IRC) have followed you into the WPTC merging page, where those editors have never posted before? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • They haven't "followed" me; perhaps if on two separate occasions people have agreed with me, your argument is faulty? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am a prominent member of both the FAC and FAR community. You actions of late have been troubling. Julian and I are not friends. This is an issue about you being a deletionist when it can benefit you or when it can hurt someone who had articles that got in your way. Such tactics are highly inappropriate. Your attacks on JC right now only verify that this is part of a personal vendetta. I have requested that the FAR be immediately dismissed on such grounds, i.e. a Point Violation, as you are disrupting Wikipedia in order to grand stand against Julian's articles in general. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not so much. How is Erick not being an FA supposed to benefit me? I really don't think it meets the FA criteria, and I don't have any interest in the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, FWIW, I've always been leery about lesser notable storms getting articles. Here is a link to a comment I made 3.5 years ago, before JC joined, and I feel pretty much the same way today. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You can be leery all you want, but WP:Notability is clear, and having multiple reliable sources that are published and copyrighted by -different organizations- regardless of the source of their primary information, is notable. By pushing your views in such a way, you are soapboxing and making a point. Such actions are inappropriate, especially when you are targeting other valuable members of this community in the process while simultaneously benefiting in some way. Wikipedia is not a Battleground and your actions towards Julian need to stop now. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think WP:N is clear in this case, which is why I want some other viewpoints. Is it really that significant of coverage when all of info comes from the same place? I'll repeat what I said elsewhere, I would like to see some non-biased people say about this. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Which of the FA criterion does this article fail? –Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If I had to say, it would be 1c, as I personally don't think stemming from one source counts as significant, reliable sources, and possibly 1d (don't focus on that one too much, just that it could, but probably not to you, be perceived as being NPOV by proving more info than its notability suggests). Anyway, as I said before, I'm more interested in hearing others' viewpoints, to see how they interpret whether it counts as significant reliable sourcing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • "Is it really that significant of coverage when all of info comes from the same place" Wrong. The base data may come from a satellite. However, the reporting, coverage, and use of that data is used in multiple sources. This is analogous to poetry. All works on the poem are using the poem, so that only have "info" that "comes from the same place". Notability is coverage. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Hi, I was asked privately to comment here. I idle in Julian's channel, and I can confirm that nothing untoward has happened in there regarding canvassing or requests for comment. For what it's worth, I am an operator in #wikipedia connect, #wikipedia-en connect and several other main Wikimedia channels. This means I'm trusted to take action against users who are not using the channels appropriately. If I had seen any of this, appropriate action would be taken. I must reiterate that any sort of canvassing done via IRC is dealt with quickly, and users who abuse their privilege of using the channel will be prevented from doing so. I cannot, of course, monitor what goes on in private, but in terms of the channel(s) themselves, there has been nothing like it. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you ever talk to JC on Skype? He confirmed that he talked about the storms on there. I'm sorry if I assumed incorrectly about his channel, however. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have conferred with Julian on Skype, and he has spoken about storms, but as a hobby rather than a Wikipedia subject. I am not in Skype all the time, but I am confident that his participation re. storms is not canvassing in any way. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think AFD might be needed here, not FAR.... which must last at least four weeks anyway unless it is "cancelled" YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 04:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it appropriate practice to take an FA to AFD? I don't really want the content deleted, just merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as merging questions are often addressed there, and there would be much more eyes looking at that discussion than here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, it's on AFD now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD closed as speedy keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As such, I'll be keeping the FAR open, since it seems like the most appropriate place for such a discussion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think soliciting input from people from the WikiProject on guidleines for notability might be needed. If that doesn't work, generalising to other natural disasters like floods and earthquakes might get more input. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The WikiProject is where this dispute started in the first place, so I'm afraid that won't do much good. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FAC criteria concerns are notability and reliable sources required to support the notability. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:28, 20 April 2009 (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_review/Tropical_Storm_Erick_(2007)/archive1&oldid=1138477984"