Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of most intense tropical cyclones
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Withdraw. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just published the article, and I believe it meets the FL criteria. It's useful in listing the most intense tropical cyclones worldwide, the criteria being the strongest cyclones listed by pressure. It is comprehensive, as I listed every tropical cyclone below a certain pressure (920 mbar was used for every basin but one, which used 900 mbar due to how many intense storms it has). It's factually accurate, as it uses data from the official agencies. It also has images, so I think it's ready for an FLC round. One thing I wanted to add was a table on the top of the article to list the most intense storms by basin, but I can't seem to figure it out. I'll be happy to address any comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing the opposition, I withdraw, primarily due to lack of time from RL. In time when I can, I'll address these comments. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, a few issues:
- The phrase "no best track is available online" is being used as a cop-out for potentially bad sourcing. I know that the statement is true, but more of an effort should be made to obtain it: email to the relevant RSMCs or to the NCDC (who supposedly archive it for the WMO). The online part should be irrelevant: either the source exists and we have it, or there is no such source.
- Why central pressure is being used and not windspeed should be explained in some detail in prose, not glibly mentioned in the tables. This is particularly an issue as it is the opposite of how the NHC uses intensity to refer to winds in TCRs and discussions; other organisations use the term similarly.
- Furthermore, it would be good to see peak winds listed for comparison.
- The dates that the data covers should be made clear in the text, not the source info, as it is important information.
- The units used inconsistently. If inHg is important enough to mention in the introduction sections, it should be included. Likewise if hPa is worthy of mentioning in the body of the tables, why not the prose?
- Wikilinking the units isn't consistent.
- Factual errors: The boundary of the SW Indian is 90 degrees, but the Reunion best track includes data outside that. For example Helinda is listed in the SW Indian list at 915 in 1996. Helinda was Pancho at the time, was in the SE Indian and it was in 1997! I'd suggest thorough cross checking of the southern Hemisphere data.
- That should keep you going for a bit.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be addressing that in the coming days (been busy in RL). Thanks for commenting, though I wish you would've commented before I put it for FLC :) --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Nilfanion. FLC was very premature for this list since you only just published it; it needs Nilfanion's concerns and more addressed. As for best track data for the South Pacific, try contacting RSMC Nadi. IMD does have best track data available. The list itself needs more lede and more prose in the sections, perhaps addressing why pressure is used and not winds (again per Nilfanion). --Coredesat 01:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Nilfanion, and to add my own concerns:
- Almost no prose at all.
- For example, almost no planes are flown in to Pacific storms, so pressures tend to be estimated. This needs mentioning.
- Put 'mbar (hPa)' in the header, we don't need it repeated 500 times.
- Also, put in a cliffs-notes explanation of why low pressure = intensity. --Golbez 03:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]