Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1973 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

1973 Atlantic hurricane season

5 articles

Main contributors: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)

I am nominating the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season as a good topic. The storms in the season that warranted articles--Brenda, Christine, Delia and Gilda--are all at good article status. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Meets the criteria. No omissions, as the other storms are not substantial enough to receive articles. Good work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per JCJason Rees (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good; I suppose that there's not enough info to create a timeline? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't go with the timeline, as according to my last FLC, one key source can't be used because some people can't read it if they don't know the HURDAT format. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I thought an article had been created to aid in interpreting that source. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: The FLC being discussed is this one) My reading of that FLC is that if an article explaining the HURDAT format is created on Wikipedia, then HURDAT references can be used, so the FLC could then pass. Having said that, even if an FL could be created here, I am not sure whether it should be a requirement for season topics to include timelines. So far we have 2 Pacific seasons without a timeline and one with a timeline, and one recent Atlantic season with both a timeline and a list of storms. If we decide it should be a requirement to include a timeline, then the 2 Pacific seasons without timelines need to get a 3 month retention period - rst20xx (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article on HURDAT, located at HURDAT, with a "how to read" section. There is also a full explanation on the official site. As for the timeline, I didn't find it really necessary for this season as there were few storms of note and not much change. It would be a fairly boring article to have. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that it would be boring, but that information on the majority of the systems during the 1973 season is scarce or even non-existent. Indeed, if a timeline was created, the majority of the events listed would lack specific information and would be exceedingly vague in nature. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the season was very long ago? What about the 1994/98 Pacific seasons? (I realised there was a HURDAT article, it was created after the FLC) rst20xx (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's part of the reason. The 1994 and 1998 Pacific seasons would indeed need timelines (I'd be happy to do the honors). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - okay - rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hurricanehink never fails to impress me. :) —Terrence and Phillip 05:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, although Cyclonebiskit did most of the work on three of these four articles, so don't leave him out... :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. AGF'ing that the other storms simply aren't notable enough for their own articles per Juliancolton. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 11:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - time to promote this, but before I do, am I right in thinking that there is agreement that the 1994 and 1998 Pacific hurricane season topics need Timeline articles, i.e. should I set retention periods for these two topics (say, three months from the promotion of this topic)? rst20xx (talk) 11:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine. When the timelines for 94 and 98 are at FL status, can they be summarily added to the topics? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's a pain but I think they still need to go through supplementary nominations to give a chance for wider feedback - rst20xx (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, fair enough - thanks for the response. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added the retentions, happily the Timeline list will also pull the 1994 topic up from good to featured, once added, so there's a bit more incentive, too - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - congratulations - rst20xx (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]