Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Chantal (2001)

< 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 05:37, 15 July 2008 [1].

Tropical Storm Chantal (2001) edit

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it passes all of the FA criteria. It's well-written, well-sourced, properly formatted, and the whole she-bang. Any problems? I'll fix 'em. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The third named storm of the season, Chantal developed on August 14 from a tropical wave in the tropical Atlantic Ocean." - sounds awkward and redundant.
  • "It tracked rapidly westward throughout much of its duration, and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - "throughout much of its duration" sounds redundant. Why couldn't one just write "most of it's duration"? Misplaced formality, it seems.
  • "Chantal reached a peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of" - could be more concise. How about "At its peak, Chantal reached maximum sustained winds of..."?
  • Redundancy: "though wind shear first and later land interaction prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time"

Overall, MOS is very good. I might check the prose of the rest of the article later, since it's not very long. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks a lot for the comments. I removed the "third named storm of the season" bit. I don't know what is redundant about "throughout much of its duration", but I went ahead and changed "throughout" to "for". I removed "maximum sustained winds", since it's not particularly important. I also removed that redundancy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no more redundancy that I can find; prose looks good in general. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't units such as "of 39 mph (63 km/h) with" be spelt out, per WP:UNITS, so that it's "of 39 miles per hour (63 km/h) with"? Gary King (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There are a few more; just search for "mph". Gary King (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, why? Did MOS change when I wasn't looking? Aren't units supposed to be spelled out only in their first instance? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears so. In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But in the next sentence of the MOS... When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. In articles which repeatedly use the same units (3-4 times per paragraph, in some cases) it makes a lot of sense to abbreviate the units. Plasticup T/C 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - could be a bit more crisp by removing "the system"...
  • "prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time; despite the unfavorable conditions, the storm was consistently anticipated to attain hurricane status." - this doesn't read great... probably should say that it was anticipated, then say that it didn't actually get it.
  • "In the Windward Islands, lightning from the system caused two indirect deaths in Trinidad" - don't need both "in the"s...

giggy (:O) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes, text squeeze between info box in the lead and the first image. Incorrect use of author field in cite templates. Websites need publisher, newspapers need work to be italicized, neither are authors. Inconsistency in author names; is it last name first or first name first? Please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text squeeze is actually standard with the tropical cyclone project, in that the storm path map should be at the top-left of the storm history section, which is naturally to the left of the Infobox. I fixed the author fields, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—It was significantly overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it to allow your high-value links to breathe. Making every month/day bright blue is kind of irritating when it's a date-based story. No one minds US date formatting, I can assure you. Repeat links undesirable here, I think.
  • Most authorities prefer although in a formal context. I notice this in just about all hurricane FACs.
  • Quite well written, but ...
    • "with winds of 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) or greater forecast within a few days"—greater?
    • Hint: avoid "as" unless perfectly clear whether a "while" or a "because": "Tropical Storm Chantal became disorganized as the center became ill-defined and situated to the west-southwest of the main area of convection".
    • "it" in the very last clause is redundant.
    • "The upper and middle level circulations"—See MOS on hanging hyphens.

I'd like to see these and other little glitches throughout cleaned up. It's very close. TONY (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, well-done as usual. --Laser brain (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward support:[reply]
    • Unlinked/unexplained jargon: "closed circulation"
      • Linked, since I can't think of a non-jargony way to phrase that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... although initially convection lacked near the center." If "lacking convection" will not change the meaning, I would recommend it. The phrase still bothers me though.. it had no convection at all?
    • "One computer model predicted the depression to ..." Consider "would" instead of "to"
    • "A tropical storm watch was issued for Barbados, St. Vincent, and Saint Lucia on August 15." Change to active voice and tell us who issued. --Laser brain (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Anyone is welcome to revert though. —Giggy 09:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Very few of the citations have publication dates. Most only have publication years. I know it's a bit of a pain, but as the full dates are available they ought to be included in the citation. Plasticup T/C 02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:30, 14 July 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/Tropical_Storm_Chantal_(2001)&oldid=1089083215"