Template:Did you know nominations/1951 Hawaii cyclone

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 21:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

1951 Hawaii cyclone edit

(

)

~~... that a cyclone made landfall in Hawaii three times?~~

Comment: Going to review another DYK, even though I don't have to QPQ. (Start training :P)

Moved to mainspace by CycloneIsaac (talk). Self nominated at 21:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. I'm wondering, though, where you got all that information in the first paragraph under Meteorological history – are you interpreting the statistical charts in footnotes 2 and 3? Per DYK rules, you need to add a cite after the sentences describing the second and third landfalls. Also, I suggest adding "in 1951" to the hook to place it in context. No QPQ needed for under-5 DYKs nominator. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I added a few more cites to footnotes 2 and 3 for the other two landfalls. I am proposing an alt hook, with your suggestion.

ALT 1:...that in 1951, a cyclone made landfall in Hawaii three times?

—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. What about my question about the statistical data? Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

IBTRACS and best track are statistical data, and I was interpreting it.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. The hook cites are both online, but I have to AGF your interpretations of the data. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the sources are very obscure, I think you are going to have to add a note to the article explaining how you derived this information from those statistics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

What makes them so obscure? This has never been a problem for other hurricane articles for DYK that use similar info. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing looks sufficient to me. Between the storm track maps, the tables, and the text in source #1, the content of the article seems to be supported. It seems to me that this is a bit like some sports-related articles that rely heavily on statistics charts. I can't interpret all of the sources here, but the article is fully consistent with those sources that I can interpret -- and the storm-track map clearly supports those 3 landfalls in Hawaii. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I confirm comments by Orlady and Yellow Evan above, in that sources for the hook are present, valid and do not need further interpretation. The positive aspects of the above review by Yoninah still stand. To prevent further delays, I'll add that the text is objective and neutral. All issues resolved. Green tick this time, because all citations are online and can be interpreted by anyone with the skills to do so. Good to go (again). --Storye book (talk) 10:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)