Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dean

< 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:20, 30 September 2008 [1].

Hurricane Dean edit

Nominator(s): Plasticup T/C


The first thing you will notice about this article is that it is long. Shortly thereafter I hope that you will be electrified by brilliant prose, and quickly return to support this nomination. In seriousness, I know that even after two peer reviews a 100KB+ article will have a few spelling and grammar errors. Don't be afraid to correct the little errors before bringing the big ones here for discussion. In my experience, FAC-nom discussions increase exponentially with article size, so this should be quite a doozie. Plasticup T/C 01:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its licensing information is already given using the {{GFDL-self}} template. As for your oppose, can you explain how the article's topic can be grounds for opposition? And I would also like you to elaborate on your concerns about its length. Hurricane Dean was one of the most powerful storms ever in the Atlantic Ocean, and I cannot imagine a comprehensive article being much shorter than this. Plasticup T/C 01:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He was joking about the length. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the readable prose size is only 33 kB (5200 words), which is fine. The large size (104 kB) of wiki-text is presumably due to the 175 references! Dr pda (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, please stop the joke opposes; they could be offputting for subsequent reviewers, who might not see the joke, and risk upsetting a nominator some day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're no fun. Look out, everyone, here comes the Fun Police. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you are coming from, but when I first read your edit I certainly wasn't laughing. For those not in the know it comes off a little rude. I know that is not your intent, but it might be something to consider. Plasticup T/C 05:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. David's just jealous at all of our FACs. :P –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I went through and only found a couple of typos. However, I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. Mexico should have more impact, as it took the brunt of the hurricane. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would think so at first, but the Cat 5 landfall was in an unpopulated area. Most of the damage came from the second (Cat 2) landfall. Damages were much worse in Martinique and Jamaica. See the Impact table for figures. There is also an article dedicated to Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico. Plasticup T/C 01:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, I fix the rare and sporadic WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues that appear when I first glance at every new FAC; there are quite a few here though, so I'll leave that task to the regular editors. Please have a look at the order of items as they should appear in the lead and in body sections. (By the way, WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT are part of WP:WIAGA, so in theory, GAs shouldn't be appearing at FAC with WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the lead and overhauled the style of the "Impact" table. I don't see any problems with images squeezing text, inappropriate text markup, lists, galleries, foreign languages, overlinking, section headings, or the other common accessibility failures. Did you have anything else in mind? Plasticup T/C 02:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sections about Structure on WP:ACCESSIBILITY; there is a preferred order on images, templates, etc., both in the lead and in the body. This is so readers who use screen readers can easily negotiate the article. These are also part of WP:LEAD and WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them and I still do not see any lead or layout errors. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you access the two sample edits I left? The structure of the lead and of each section (the order of templates, images, cleanup dab and maintenance templates, etc.) is specified in WP:ACCESS so that readers who use screen readers can easily access our articles. I did some of it; you need to check that the elements in each section are ordered per ACCESS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I moved a couple more {{main}} templates to the tops of their sections, which should account for all of them. Sorry for being so dense; I have never seen these standards before. Plasticup T/C 04:12, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Struck; better now. I'm unsure why editors aren't aware of WP:ACCESSIBILITY, since LEAD and LAYOUT are even part of WP:WIAGA, but these keep slipping through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is one editor you've managed to convert. My article's won't be coming through with these problems again. Plasticup T/C 04:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support! Now this is a proper hurricane article! Probably the best on Wikipedia. I'm sick and tired of seeing similar hurricanes have articles which are about 2 or 3 medium sized sections long and lack any in depth aftermath media or information etc. This one is great, looks like a great research tool and certainly up to FA standards. Language looks fine as well, and it is nicely referenced with consideration. Well done. Domiy (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then feel free to comment on those which you feel lack such breadth and coverage. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Similar hurricane articles? Right, a tropical storm which caused zero disturbance at either land or sea is infinitely similar to one of the most powerful Atlantic hurricanes in history. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not bash this fine gentleman for supporting my work! Plasticup T/C 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations when they are first used in the references (NOAA, EQECAT, CDERA, CONAGUA, JIS, etc. BBC isn't one that needs to be spelled out, nor is CNN).
Caribbean Disaster Emergency Response Agency (CDERA) is already spelled out when it first appears in the prose and EQECAT is the name of the company. I will spell out the others, but I believe that it is acceptable (even encouraged) to use common abbreviation in citations where you might not in the prose. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here is defining "common", or "well-known". While CDERA might be well known in the disaster relief community, it's probably not well known outside there. Same deal for NOAA, most folks IN the US wouldn't know what it was, much less outside the US. I always figure it's better to err on the side of "too much information" than "too little". Does that explain where I was coming from a bit better? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 65 (Staff wrtier "Jamaica alert") lacks a last access date.
Done. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 104 (HOward Campbell) is lacking a publisher
Done. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one of the biggest and most accepted news sources in the Caribbean. I'm not sure how to respond. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not everyone is from the Caribbean, we don't always know well respected regional news organizations outside our own regions. Anyway, dealt with, thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current 133 is lacking a publisher and last access date.
Done. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Worked for me, but I replaced it anyway. Plasticup T/C 15:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look okay. Can't check links as the link checker tool is down. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Plasticup T/C 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Plasticup T/C 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Plasticup T/C 23:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Plasticup T/C 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Plasticup T/C 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several others that have been moved, have internal problems, or require registration.

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, they are all fixed/updated/archived. The link-checker tool show a couple failures, but that it because it checks both the original url and the archived version. Every web citation points to a valid source. Plasticup T/C 01:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case, the article has duplicate references all with the same name only the first one of which actually has the archived url. So it doesn't remove the duplicate named reference and checks all references. — Dispenser 14:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Should be fixed now. Plasticup T/C 15:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preemptive support - I was shocked at the length of the article. Then I was electrified by the brilliant prose and came back here to support. ;) In all seriousness, the prose was fairly good at a glance. Some general things to watch out for:

  • Long, winding, awkward sentences - for example, the second sentence was rather hard for me to understand.
  • Use of "some". I don't mean get rid of every instance, that would be hopelessly silly, but in some instances (pun intended), it's simply unnecessary.

It's late here; I'll take a more in-depth look tomorrow. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I axed some somes and I'll take a gander at the long sentences too. Feel free to chop up any that you find particularly troublesome.Plasticup T/C 03:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I chopped up and/or reworded a few sentences. The prose appeared good at a second-over, so I struck out the preemptive. The only question I have is on "nations in its paths" - why is paths plural? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article has yet experienced the brilliance of Nousernamesleft. 'twas a typo, and i've fixed it. :) Plasticup T/C 00:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - For consistency, numbers under ten should usually be spelled out. You have done so everywhere in the article, except for one sentence: "prepared 4 emergency health kits..." —Mattisse (Talk) 21:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSNUM explains that "comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures". Either I spell out the subsequent "one-thousand water containers" so that they are both spelled out or I use "4" so that they are both in figures. I have chosen the later, because the former would be silly. Thank you for your thorough copy edit. You caught a lot of good things. Plasticup T/C 21:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad I could help with fixing the errors. Sorry for making a silly suggestion. I'll withdraw from any further involvement with the progress of this FAC. —Mattisse (Talk) 08:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion (4 → four) wasn't silly, it was just incomplete. To complete your suggestion we would have to also change 1,000 to one-thousand, and that is where it gets silly. I didn't mean to say that your edit suggestion silly, although re-reading what I wrote I see how you could have read it that way. Plasticup T/C 01:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support For the past weeks and months, I've helped copyedit the article quite a bit. After reading the article for some time and watch it progress, I feel this is clearly one of the best articles on a retired hurricane, and for sure the most comprehensive piece of information about the storm. Surely I could find a number of little nitpicks, but overall, it looks terrific. Well done Plasticup; I am truly amazed at your work, giving that my speed is closer to this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:58, 22 September 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/Hurricane_Dean&oldid=1136097292"