Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Able (1951)/archive1

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 by Laser brain 00:15, 23 January 2010 [1].

Hurricane Able (1951)

Nominator(s): Viennaiswaiting (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Hurricane Able (1951)/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because... its a really good article about a fascinating storm. It was the strongest hurricane outside of the normal season. I think it meets all of the criteria. IDK, I got a little help from the Hurricane Rick (2009) article, which is also on FAC. I didn't do too much to it, but since the main writer is retired, I didn't think it'd be a big deal nomming it. Oh, and it's for an eventual featured topic I'm workin on. Hope you like it! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text is present (thanks) but contains a few details that cannot be verified by a non-expert who's looking only at the images, and which therefore need to be reworded or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. The problematic phrases are "on May 18", "major hurricane", and "peak intensity". Eubulides (talk) 06:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a, possibly 1b, 2b. It's not bad, but not up to par with other storm FAs. The prose needs a good deal of work for precision, accessibility, organization, and plain grammar. I'm not convinced all information is present, since I'm aware of good printed sources of hurricane history around Florida. The body is not well-organized.

The lead lost me right away. You write that it was "outside of the typical Atlantic hurricane season" and then the next sentence reads "The first tropical cyclone of the 1951 Atlantic hurricane season"?
Strange turns of phrase, such as "Able became more tropical" and "Hurricane Able caused minor effects"
Language lacking precision, such as: "drifted eastward near the Bahamas" It was near the Bahamas when it drifted eastward, or it drifted eastward toward the Bahamas?
The lead overall leaves me flat; the opening line got me interested ("strongest recorded hurricane" Oh!) but the rest of it is ho-hum. It turned this way and that, it rained, and then it was over. We need to tell the reader why they should care.
"The polar trough gradually weakened as the low organized" When did it become a "polar" trough and what does that mean?
More oddities: "provided favorable conditions towards"
"Receiving the name Able, the small hurricane turned to the southeast" From, and how?
Confusing terminology will confound non-specialists: In the meteorological history, you write that Able "transitioned into a tropical storm" and that it was a "storm of full hurricane strength". As such, we've got the impression these are synonymous. However later you write that some stuff happened and then "it deteriorated into a tropical storm". See the disconnect?
More oddities: "resulted in a construction crew to evacuate"
Grossly overlinked; "Bahamas" and "Bermuda" are repeat offenders, but the whole thing needs auditing.
The organization is problematic. In relation to the lead, you state up front what is probably the only interesting thing about the storm, but you wait until the very end of the article to discuss it. You seem to have the "preparation" material all muddled in with "impact".
The article seems lightly researched; are there no more details available in Barnes' Florida's Hurricane History? Ask Juliancolton maybe?

Good work! --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
- Please spell out abbreviations in the notes (NOAA). I think I say this on most hurricane FACs, can we please get it taken care of before FAC?
- Two deadlinks with the link checker tool.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Been doing some thinking, and I don't really think I'm up to all this work, after going through a big GA review.. Sorry for wasting all of your time, but I don't really want to go through with this anymore. Hope that's cool!! --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all—at least now you have a record of feedback you can act on at a later time. I will archive this page; please make sure to leave the FAC template on the article talk page until the bot goes through and records the archive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.