Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Marie (2014)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hurricane Marie (2014) edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Marie in 2014 was the among the strongest Eastern Pacific hurricanes on record, attaining Category 5 status on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale. A large system, it had substantial effects along the coastlines of Mexico and California despite its center remaining hundreds of miles away. Six people lost their lives due to the storm and damage in California was especially severe. A breakwater off the coast of Long Beach suffered extensive damage amounting to roughly $10 million. Hopefully you enjoy reading this as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with the disclaimer that I did a pre-FAC review before CB nominated it to help clean up prose and such. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Marie_Aug_24_2014_1830Z.png: do you have a link to confirm author? Not seeing it in given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The satellite image in question is a modified version, by @Supportstorm:, of one of the Geostationary satellite images (labeled as GEO on the source) for Marie. The particular satellite used in that image is GOES-15 which is operated by NOAA. Original image can be seen here. Hopefully that clears it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I removed one blatant double link, but I feel the piped links for the "Category # hurricane" are useful. I don't feel that strongly either way, though, so if they're an issue I'll remove the other extra links. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the Category 5 one could go to List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support:Good enough for me.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewer for this article's GA nomination, I support--12george1 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
In "Meteorological History":
  • "...ranking as the six-strongest in the Pacific east of the..." — I believe it should be "sixth" strongest.
  • Regarding the Most intense Pacific hurricanes table, can there be a note to clarify the difference to a layman between Pacific typhoons and hurricanes? When I see the article for Typhoon Tip, there's a "Most intense Pacific typhoons" table there. Confusing for me.
In "Preparations and impact":
  • "...office warned residents in Los Angeles and Ventura counties could 'potentially see the largest surf in recent years generated by a hurricane.'" — Aren't citations supposed to come right after a direct quotation?
*"North of Malibu, one home fell into the ocean." — The source just says it was a "structure". Any later sources that say it was a "home"?
  • Corrected it to "structure". I probably misread it and interpreted it to mean house. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*"The Los Angeles County Fire Department assisted with 115 ocean rescues on August 26." — Source says over 115 were conducted.
  • "Along the breakwater, three areas were completely gouged out by the surf while five other areas were significantly damaged." — The source for this ([2]) lists different major and significant damage numbers.
  • "...850 ft (260 m) saw significant damage, and a further 1,725 ft (526 m) experienced moderate damage." — I don't see that breakdown in the LA Times source. All I see is the total length of significant and moderate damage.
  • "...damaged a roadway at Sea Launch, within Long Beach." — I don't understand what "Sea Launch" is from the cited source. Is it the Sea Launch Commander? Is it a neighborhood in Long Beach? Is it a corporate center?
  • I believe it's the ship, since the source was giving a general location of where the damage took place. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Army Corps estimated that it could take more than $10 million to repair and replace the damaged breakwaters in Long Beach." — The cited source says $20M for the middle breakwater alone.
  • Corrected to $20 million and changed the wording to reflect that it's only for the major damage to the Middle Breakwater. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Damage at the beach was deemed the worst since September 1997 when Hurricane Linda brought large swells to the region." — I'm unclear about two things with this sentence. First, the source given for Linda only notes five men swept out to sea and rescued. It doesn't list any damage. Marie indirectly resulted in heavy damage and one California fatality. I think this storm ranks farther up in impact than Linda. Second, "damage at the beach" seems to refer to the previous sentence about Pebbly Beach and not the impact on other beaches or along a broader stretch of coastline. The NOAA source doesn't mention Pebbly Beach at all, however. Please clarify for me.
  • I'm just going by what the sources say in regards to the severity of damage. As for the second part, it is indeed for Pebbly Beach specifically. The NOAA source is just to verify that the "September 1997" storm is Linda, nothing more really. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've either addressed or replied to all of your comments. Many thanks for the review, Veggies! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as all my points have been addressed, I support the promotion of this article. -- Veggies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spot-checked some of the sources and everything looks to be in order in terms of verification and paraphrasing. All sources look reliable enough to support the uncontroversial and chiefly descriptive content, and citation formatting is consistent from what I can tell. I can't read much Spanish, but I don't see anything to suggest translation errors. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. It would probably be a good idea to talk less about development and initial movement of the cyclone in the lead, since that information is immediately repeated below the lead, and since most readers will be more interested in the impacts of the hurricane. - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 28 April 2015 (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_Marie_(2014)/archive1&oldid=1142602795"