Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak/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 not promoted 01:50, 7 May 2008.

2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe this meets all FA criteria. The article recently went through a rigerous GAN and subsequent cleanup. There are no {{fact}} tags or any remaining issues from the GAN. The only issue could be a bit of jargon in the meteorological sypnosis. The article was revied by a WP:SEVERE member who understands some of the complex terms. Otherwise, I believe all statements are referenced using Cite Web fully. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I believe that this is by far one of the WP:SEVERE's best articles, I have just a couple minor comments. First, could you add UTCs to the Meteorological Synopsis? Second, ref 15 isn't working right. After these things are addressed, I will support. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ReplyWell, I have fixed the format issue, but dicovered the link does not work. I am not the best at finding archived NWS statements, in fact I never have except for the archived warnings from WFO OUN. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't say this before, but I just noticed that some of the references have accessdates, and some don't. It's not the end of the world, but I'd prefer to see consistency in the refs. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if the link doesn't work you should try to replace the link or just remove the associated information. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would, but it is about tornado emergencies and it somewhat important since it was a record. I've searched for on the archives I could find, and couldn't find it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could be a problem. On the link checker, it says all links are OK, but obviously some of the references don't work. You could put [dead link] in the ref for the time being, and I'll try to find a replacement for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All other links checked out okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed ref 100. I would have to agree that those are not really reliable, but they are the only things out there for those statements. The high risk statement definately has to stay to show how historic this outbreak was. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You could use the SPC archives... Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The SPC archives only go back through 2003 or so. I will be gone all mrorning and into the early afternoon. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is 2008, we don't need them from 2003 or earliler. ;) I'll look for them for you when I get the chance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we do need an outlook from 1998 for the February high risk reference, since that last was last time one was issued. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean this? ;) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's from April. It was February 10, 1998, just a derecho over the Gulf Coast Probably not very many, if any references can be found about it, and if there are any, I doubt that it will refer to the high risk. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, I see. I've found some blogs that refer to the high-risk, but they clearly arn't a RS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have put access dates on all references now! Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks good to me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is some rather awkward writing in this article:
  • "Temperatures across many areas reached the 70s°F (21–26 °C) with local reports in the low 80s°F (27 °C) across portions of Alabama with dewpoint temperatures in the mid–60s°F (17–20 °C)". With ... with, portions of Alabama?
  • "... hail as large as softballs". Is that big? I'm not from the US, so I don't know how large a softball is.
  • "In Arkansas, the 13 fatalities were the most fatalities since 25 were killed during the Benton, Arkansas Tornado Outbreak on 1 March 1997." How do you kill a fatality?
  • "Some of the most powerful storms were situated across the Memphis and Jackson areas between 23:00 UTC and 00:30 UTC while numerous other tornadoes were reported across northern Mississippi northwest of Tupelo, Mississippi ...". Does the "while" mean that these other tornadoes also occurred between 23:00 and 00:30?
  • "A record five tornado emergency declarations were issued, four located in Tennessee ..." That doesn't sound right, "located" in?
  • "The first of the long-track supercells of the outbreak, and the longest continuous track of any single tornado, developed about 5:00 pm ..." The article was using UTC earlier.

These are just a few examples; the text needs some work yet I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply
  • First comment: The "with" refers to the local reports, not the portions of Alabama.
  • Third comment: That sentence sounds perfectly normal to me. How do you suggest we write it instead?
  • Fourth comment: The while does mean other tornadoes occured during that time period and makes perfect sense to me.
  • Fifth comment: Once again, that is proper grammar. "Located in" means that tornado emergencies were issued in Tenneessee.
  • Drive-by reply:
2. Right, but readers not from the U.S. will not be familiar with that comparison. Try to find a more universal size comparison.
3. The repetition of "fatalities" is ungainly (you can cut the second one safely). "were killed" is currently modifying "fatalities", but storms can't kill fatalities (nor can anything else). They can, however, kill people; insert "people" after 25.
5. "located" is ungainly here. Just "in" makes for a better flowing sentence. BuddingJournalist 17:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is boldface being used for the risks and EF ratings? Also, provide context for the EF ratings on first use ("The tornado was rated an EF4 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale"). BuddingJournalist 17:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose. There is much to like about this article. It's informative and it seems to be well researched. My only reservation is that it is not well enough written to be considered of the professional standard demanded of FAs. I have fixed the points I raised in my comment above, but they were only examples. "... the first such issuance in February since 10 February 1998" Is "issuance" even a word? The article needs some polishing, probably best done by someone with fresh eyes. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Give me a couple days and I'll see what I can do about the flow & prose. Gopher backer (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

  • All of the issues brought up by Budding Journalist have been rectified. As for the boldface, it is used for what it is designed for, emphasis. I will put the first mention of an EF rating in context. Once again, issuance is a word, look at the English Wikitionary. I am going to bring in a outside person who is a grammar whiz to look at the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RE: boldface. It should not be used for emphasis. BuddingJournalist 23:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. When the prose has been sorted out I look forward to being able to support this nomination. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Boldface: 1. It is project standard, and 2.I don't see how italics really emphasize anything. As for the prose, I just went through the article with the grammar whiz mentioned above on the phone. I believe I have rectified all prose issues. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
? The use of italics for emphasis is standard not only in Wikipedia (by consensus), but also in almost any other publication. Could you point me to the project's rationale for overriding MOS? I also don't see why the risks and EF ratings need to be emphasized. BuddingJournalist 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The risks and EF ratings are key elements to the synoptic history of the system, and therefore need to be bolded. Besides, it's project standards. I don't see any reason why it should be any different. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this nomination, and I will be taking a Wikibreak for a long time. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to withdraw. If you want, I can take over the nomination and see what I can do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, just leave it alone. I have done everthing possible for this article, but people seem to think I am lazy and don't want to do anything. Do not expect me to respond to anymore messages for a long time. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody think you're lazy. Remember, this is FAC, and a featured article has to be perfect, so people are very strict when reviewing articles. Don't take it personally. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why this article should be withdrawn either. But the issues raised do have have to be addressed, not just shrugged off. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to withdraw either, especially if Juliancolton is willing to take over the nom if SKYWARN goes on wikibreak. "people seem to think I am lazy and don't want to do anything" I have seen no evidence of anyone thinking that you are lazy, and I certainly hope that I'm not included in the "people" you cite. No one thinks you're lazy. FACs can certainly be frustrating, but remember that reviewers are commenting on the article, not editors. Please don't take criticisms of the article personally. BuddingJournalist 02:19, 6 May 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/2008_Super_Tuesday_tornado_outbreak/archive1&oldid=1069799726"