Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1947 Sydney hailstorm/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was withdrawn by nominator and closed by User:SandyGeorgia 04:17, 16 June 2008 [1].

1947 Sydney hailstorm edit

I appreciate that, on the face of it, this may look too brief to be a featured article and therefore considered 'Wikipedia's best work'. However, as I said in the GA review here, the fact that this storm occured over half a century ago has meant that finding information on it has been very difficult, which I found surprising given how serious it was.

Given this, I believe the article is comprehensive as I am of the opinion I have included all encyclopedic-worthy material on the subject at my disposal, and hence I believe it is not ineligable for FA on length grounds. That doesn't necessary mean that there isn't other problems with it, and I would like to thank all those who offer constructive and actionable suggestions to help improve this article, hopefully up to FA standard.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Gary King (talk) 04:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "£750,000" → "GB£750,000" per WP:CURRENCY since several countries use Pound
  • "A$45 million" → "AU$45 million" per WP:CURRENCY (it's even used as an example there)
    • It was used as an example not to show to use two-letter acronyms, and I must confess I have never seen any objection to using "A$" before (especially in an Australian article). I've changed it, but I can't say I think it needed to be changed.
      • Alright, it was just a suggestion. Personally, I think that it's best to always use two-letter abbreviations of country names for currencies, although you can change it back if you want. Gary King (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nah, it looks OK. Plus, it's also now consistent with GP and US by being two letters. Thanks for bringing it up, 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Subsequent mentions of currency don't have to be linked
    • Well, mentions in the lead and then in the last section are far enough apart to merit repetative linking. Plus, infoboxes are sometimes omitted, so the linking in there does not constitute an initial link. I did, however, remove a link from Australian dollar which occured twice in the one section (the last section).

Gary King (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I realise this was discussed above, but I'm not sure about the use of three two letter currency abbreviations in one sentence. Might it not be better to write one of them out, for example "...equal to 45 million Australian dollars in modern figures." I know, it's not proper style, so you probably want to ignore this.
  • In Conditions and Climatology, the second paragraph should probably begin "Hailstones have a history..." or "Hailstones have had a history...", right?
    • Indeed fixed. Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storms that appear on the 'top ten list of most insured damages' - are these lists just for Australia, or worldwide? If specific to Australia, suggest adding "...in the country." or similar to the end of the sentence.
  • The figure for number of people requiring hospitalisation or other medical attention is only in the lead, it's not mentioned in the "Aftermath" section, which seems strange to me.
    • Indeed it was - I mentioned the 1000 injuries but forgot the 200-350 hospitalisations. Fixed. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed a few phrases and passages I thought were a little clunky, the article could maybe do with a more thorough copyedit, I may look at this later, but no significant improvements spring to mind immediately. Adacore (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm trying to slap some people I know into running their eyes over it, which will hopefully result in a copyedit or two over the weekend period. Cheers, and thanks for your suggestions, Daniel (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Good work overall, but I have a few comments.
  • Maybe change the first sentence to specify what kind of natural disaster it was?
    • I considered doing this initially, but saying "The 1947 Sydney hailstorm was a hailstorm which struck..." just seemed, well, a tad odd :) Does the bolded "hailstorm" do the job sufficiently? Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut down on the references in the lead.
    • Any reason for this? I was under the impression that the lead can either be referenced not at all or to the same standard as the rest of the article, and the current version falls into the second category. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add non-breaking spaces.
    • I think I got everything that needed this; if I missed anything, please let me know. Thanks for bringing this up. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The day was hot and humid, with the top temperature recorded during the day being 32.7 °C (90.9 °F) and humidity reaching 73%. "the top temperature" would be better as "the high temperature".
  • Is "Sydneysiders" a word? Maybe give a Wikitionary link?
  • The conditions and climatology section could use a copyedit to improve prose flow.
    • Hopefully will come with the copyedits (see above) :) Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Daniel (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kelly hi! 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The quote in the first para of "Progression of the storm" contains some meteorological terms that could do with explanation and/or linking - for example, "curtained" and "mammilated".
  • As a drawing, Image:1947 Baro Map.JPG should be in SVG format per WP:IUP#Format.
  • Image:Pitt St Tram cropped.jpg has no details on authorship or date of creation/publication, aside from a statement that it came from the National Archives of Australia. The same is true of the image this was derived from, Image:Pitt St Tram.jpg.

Oppose. This is an interesting contribution but there are many problems with the prose. Here are some examples:

  • The storm cell developed in the morning of New Years' Day, a public holiday in Australia, over the Blue Mountains before hitting Sydney and dissipating east of Bondi in the mid-afternoon. I think on the morning would be better, and we already know it was New Years' Day because we were told this in the first sentence. Before hitting is too colloquial this should be simply and hit.
  • The strength of the storm was put down to the high humidity - this is non-encyclopedic language.
  • Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately .. - Estimated and approximately have the same meaning here, this is tautology and it should be The cost of damages
  • many people had no cover or shelter. - more tautology here.
  • It moved directly over Liverpool at 2:25 pm, heading in a north-west direction before slowly bending its path to be travelling almost due west, - why to be and not simply and?
  • The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, - Did the hailstones cause injuries by directly striking flying debris or did the debris cause injuries outright? This is not clear. And, why the vast majority instead of plain English more?

The article needs tidying-up; the prose does not meet the required FA standard. GrahamColmTalk 18:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sources look good. Links seem to work with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • First sentence could do with a wlink to hailstorm.
  • "A boat at Rose Bay in water which is being churned by the hailstones." - active voice?

giggy (:O) 14:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now

  • Lots of terms linked to multiple times. As an example, Blue Mountains is linked three times (not counting the infobox off to the side). (See WP:OVERLINK for guideline.)
  • Lots of unnecessary links for common words, like beach, car, cloud, roof, breeze, ambulance. (See WP:CONTEXT for guideline.)
  • World War II ended 16 (not 18) months prior.
  • For hailstones compared to sportsballs (a habit in the US, too, I'm afraid), some approximate measurements are appropriate. Being from the US, I have no feel for how big a cricket-ball-sized hailstone is, for example.
  • Needs a good copyedit to improve prose. A couple of representative examples:
    • Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time to be approximately… Use either estimated or approximately to show that it is not exact; you don't need both.
    • The convertible cars, which were in fashion at the time of the storm, also sustained severe damage… Are these specific convertibles, or do you mean convertibles in general?
    • The vast majority of the approximately 1000 injuries were caused by the hailstones directly striking people or flying debris, with the latter mainly from shattered windows. Currently it could read that the hailstones struck "people" or "flying debris", which I don't think is the case.

— Bellhalla (talk) 14:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly there's only one case of overlinking that I could find - Australia was linked twice in the Conditions and Climatology section. The three Blue Mountains links are all in seperate sections which is technically acceptable per WP:OVERLINK, however I agree the latter two cases are close enough together that this is unnecessary (despite being in seperate sections they're in consecutive lines of prose), so I've removed the 3rd link. Adacore (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks fairly good, but I have some concerns. Not sure I can support this right now, but I will revisit later:

  • According to MOS:UNLINKYEARS, you should be careful with linking dates like 1990 to events 1990 Sydney hailstorm since it could break auto-formatting. It doesn't, but I suspect the reader may not be aware that these links point to anything buy dates. So spelling out these events (in some way that isn't damaging to the prose), will do a better job of connecting these together.
    • The other option (in addition to the status quo) which I believe is plausible is to delink them entirely. Any preference? (I'm not fussed either way.) Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider not having all of the images right-aligned. Maybe stagger them.
    • Unless they overlap, is there any reason for this? To be perfectly honest, I don't see how staggering them looks any better than having them all right-aligned, to be honest. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You presume in the lead that most people know that the capital of New South Wales is Sydney, but that's not true. (We Americans barely know the capitals of our own states.) Yes, you can infer it from context, but it could be clearer.
  • "The strength of the storm was put down" - consider rewording
    • Done by Wackymacs (with thanks for the general copyedit). Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damages associated with the storm were estimated at the time" - consider removing "at the time". This could use a bit of copyediting for unnecessary clauses.
    • Any suggestions on how to note that the figures were in 1947 currency values (ie. inflation-non-adjusted) without using that term? I couldn't think of any :( Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch your overlinking. Do you really need to link the units in the lead, for example?
    • The first occurace of units are normally linked for those not aware of imperial/metric values. Daniel (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most severe injuries were located on Sydney's beaches" - sounds like the beaches were injured, not the people.
  • "and humidity reaching 73%." - humidity reached?
  • "The general weather pattern for Sydney in summer is movement from the west to the east" - consider rephrasing.
  • "However, the Bureau of Meteorology reported that the formation of the storm was different to most others" - this sentence (and several earlier in this section) feel tangled and not well phrased.

Otherwise, the references look fine. You should consider getting a peer review, if you haven't already, since the largest remaining issues here are just prose. JRP (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—The prose is clearly not yet of FA standard. I suggest you withdraw it, search for word-nerd collaborators from Sydney members or the edit histories of similar articles, and maybe consider resubmitting when it sparkles.
  • The caption at the top: MOS breach in the full-stop.
    • The irony being that the Manual of Style guideline on the topic uses a caption in its very first image. Apparently, "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely nominal groups (sentence fragments) that should not end with a period. If a complete sentence occurs in a caption, that sentence and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period", but the infobox caption is just as much a full sentence as the one in the guideline. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time, it was the most severe to strike the city since records began in 1792."—The most severe hailstorm? By what criteria? Perhaps it's justified in greater detail further down. The first three words are redundant, and the same phrase is also redundant in the next para.
    • This is the lead, not the body. It's a generalised summation, as you well know, so such statements are commonplace. I also believe the terms are not redundant because it explicitly clarifies that it is not the most severe storm now, but that it was back in 1947. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximately equal to"—bit ugly. "Equivalent to"? And it's the second "approximately" in five words.
    • I've removed one, but you should consult significant figures - something can only be as accurate as the numbers with which it was produced. Therefore, if A is "approximate" and B was derived from A, B is therefore also approximate. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of Sydney"—redundant.
  • Approximately again. Try "about" or nothing.
  • comma plus "with" twice in two sentences. It's B-grade grammar, anyway.
    • I fixed one, but I fail to see how it doesn't read well and is therefore considered "B-grade grammar". Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "broken glass shards" ... um ... hasn't a shard broken off from a larger piece of glass already? What about "flying shards of glass"? TONY (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could just be that the skylight in the roof has collapsed, which would result in the individually cut pieces of glass to fall out of their slots and have therefore become flying shards of non-broken glass. Has happened once at the Central railway station at the Southern end; the same place, coincidentally, where the "broken glass shards" fell. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2008 (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_candidates/1947_Sydney_hailstorm/archive1&oldid=1138452972"