Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

< 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:Raul654 19:07, 14 December 2008 [1].

Tropical Storm Erick (2007) edit

Nominator(s): Juliancolton
previous FAC (19:52, 30 September 2008)

Yep, here it is again, the weak tropical storm that never affected land. It's a very short article, obviously, but what it lacks in length it makes up for in comprehensiveness. The article uses a variety of sources, both from government and news agencies. As it was a very short-lived storm, there is nothing more to write about it that isn't indiscriminate. Why am I nominating this again? Because I've worked hard at it, and with the help of Titoxd (talk · contribs) who significantly copyedited the article, I feel it meets the criteria without a question. Last time I nominated this, I withdrew due to growing opposition to such a short article, with the hope that a massive discussion at WT:FAC would eventually resolve the issue at hand. As it's been several weeks, and there has been no progress in coming to an agreement, it seems likely that the FA criteria will not be changed to exclude short articles in the near future. So, during this FAC, I strongly encourage people to vote in compliance with the current criteria. Please note that this is not a POINT nomination, but rather a regular attempt to recognize an article as Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance for any comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why is there an image in the references section? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 14:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

During the previous FAC, some editors requested more satellite pictures. As there is no room in the text for another image, I added it to the references section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the image in the ref section does anything to enhance the reader's understanding, and it is odd placement. لennavecia 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jennavecia. For now, weak support upgraded to regular-strength support. Good luck with the nomination, Julian. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 17:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's fair. I removed the image. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that the image issue is fixed. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. There's an apparent discrepancy between the minimum pressure given in the infobox (1004 mbar) and that given in the text (1005 mbar). --Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Can you do something about this sentence: "In terms of forecasting, despite lower than average official forecasting errors, Erick was poorly forecast"? The repetitions really clunk, here. Also, what does "lower than average official forecasting errors" actually refer to? Is the intended sense that, while in general, official forecasting errors for the season were lower than the averages of other seasons, Erick wasn't forecast accurately? If so, could this be clarified? Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't provide any further clarification, so I removed that one bit of the sentence. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support- This article is well written.--Irmela08 16:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment - It's not really a very short article, but since you offer it up as such, we need to test that shortness in itself isn't unsatisfactory. This perhaps allows us to test the application of the new clarified "placing the subject in context". Why is this article of interest? The thesis seems to be that the storm was not unusual in any way and had no impact. Why not merge it with all the other nondescript unimportant storms of that season then? What is it that justifies this storm having its own article? What does it tell us that would be lost in a list of other run-of-the-mill weather events of 2007? More specific points:

  • Because the storm remained far from land, no damage was reported in association with Erick. - if it had damaged shipping would this not have been reported? It appears that it wasn't powerful enough to have caused any damage anyway (if this is the wrong interpretation it suggests that I don't have a enough context to draw the correct conclusion)
  • This has been rephrased poorly. Now we have no damage on land, when it should be no damage at all. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On July 22, the wave passed through the Lesser Antilles with some deep, yet disorganized thunderstorm activity. What is "deep" thunderstorm activity? Are thunderstorms normally organized?
  • The thunderstorms are still "disorganized" with no explanation of what this means. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate you are trying to clarify the meaning of disorganized in this context, but so far it isn't a lot clearer. Is it a technical term? If so, could it be linked to an appropriate article? If not, could it be rephrased to avoid the implication of organisation by some form of intelligence. Yomanganitalk 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of its upgrade, Erick attained peak winds of 40 mph (65 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 1004 mbar. Was the peak and minimum for the entire life of the storm, or just during the period it was being upgraded?
  • The addition of "as a cyclone" to this sentence isn't really helpful. Simply adding "its" was fine. Yomanganitalk
  • Although finding the exact position of the center of circulation was difficult... For whom? Why?
  • We are still missing the "why?" (and why is it important to do so?) Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence, In particular, the storm formed without significant warning, and dissipated similarly, explains this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does that explain in relation to the sentence above? Aside for the fact it is not related to it in the text, it is a comment on the forecasting success not the monitoring and plotting of the storm. Why was it difficult to locate the centre of circulation? What was it about the storm that made this difficult? And why do the meteorologists (or anybody else) need to locate the centre of circulation? Yomanganitalk 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A weak low pressure system formed along the wave on August 3, although it failed to reorganize as it entered the North Pacific. Why? We know the wind shear prevented it forming initially, did it prevent it reforming as well? What is failing to reorganize into what? Would this reorganization normally be expected (and if not why is it mentioned)?
  • "What is failing to reorganize into what?" has been clarified. The other questions remain unanswered. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of them have been clarified, but most need further work. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On August 5, the low-level remnants of Tropical Storm Erick passed south of Hawaii, though caused no effects. no effects? How were they detected then? Perhaps you mean no damage?
  • Hmm, I'm not really sure what kind of clarification you are requesting. Could you please explain further? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No effects" is rather vague. If it caused no effects, it would not be detectable. Do you mean had no impact on the infrastructure? Caused no damage? Also "on the island" has been added here. Hawaii is an archipelago. Is this meant to be Hawaii's "Big Island" or is this just an error? Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the reply to Brianboulton above. The source doesn't provide any further clarification, so I removed that one bit of the sentence. Are there no other sources to explain this? Rather than removing parts of the meagre information available, can you not provide some explanation? Yomanganitalk 17:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Tropical Cyclone Report is the only source that provides information about forecasting for minor storms such as Erick, and it doesn't clarify that statement. The only way to clarify that in the article would be original research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to have been clarified. I hope that wasn't OR. Yomanganitalk 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Oppose. This is a fairly weak oppose, based not on the shortness of the article but on the prose quality and lack of context in certain areas. Some examples:
    • "On August 5, the low-level remnants of Tropical Storm Erick passed south of Hawaii, though caused no effects." Ungrammatical and doesn't make sense.
    • "In general, Erick was poorly forecast; the storm formed without significant warning, and dissipated similarly." What does "in general" mean here? Poorly forecast in relation to what, in what way? Why was it "poorly forecast"?
    • We're told in the lead that Erick was the eighth tropical storm of the 2007 Pacific season. What is Erick's relative standing in that season overall? Was Erick typical for that season?

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the above examples. Could you take another look? Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the examples have been addressed; in at least one case the issue has been compounded. For instance: "Erick was considered to be poorly forecast by the National Hurricane Center". This is not at all clear. By whom was it considered to have been poorly forecast? By the National Hurricane Center? Or were they the ones doing the forecasting, and someone else (unspecified) considered that they had done a poor job of forecasting? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The National Hurricane Center considered the storm to have been poorly forecast by themselves; I've tried to make this clear in the article, though suggestions regarding further clarification would be appreciated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the whole sentence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks a lot better, thanks Tito. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enough has been done to satisfy me over the points I raised above. Switching to support. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead:

  • "Because the storm remained far out to sea" Should that not be at sea?
  • "with some strong, yet disorganized thunderstorm activity." Thunderstorms are organized?

I won't make a "vote" yet, as I'm not especially familiar with this topic. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

These should be easy issues to fix up. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved issues, Cyclonebiskit (talk)

Comments from Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) My turn :P Little later that I wanted to be but here it goes

  • Lead
    • Good
  • Meteorological history
    • "At the time of its upgrade, Erick attained its peak winds as a cyclone of 40 mph (65 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 1004 mbar.[1]" No conversion into inHg?
    • " A weak low pressure system formed along the wave on August 3, although it failed to reorganize into a tropical cyclone as it entered the North Pacific." It's already in the North Pacific, do you mean West or Central?
    • "According to the storm's Tropical Cyclone Report, the National Hurricane Center considered that its own staff forecast poorly the evolution of Erick when compared to the center's average prediction errors." forecast poorly? Might just be me, but seems a bit awkward
  • Impact and statistics
    • Good
  • Other stuff
    • Good

Just three little things I found after reading it over. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all three. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly Support - Meets all the criteria. Kaldari (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Support per usual disclaimer. I have followed the arguments on various pages and read some previous arguments concerning shorter FAs. I'm left feeling disappointed that we're not making anything that feels to me like progress. The bottom line is that, when I read an article like this, my sense is that it will usually wind up not getting promoted at FAC for one reason or another. When the community is ready to make a good-faith effort to carefully push the boundary, to figure out exactly what kind of shorter and "drier" (probably better than "boring", which is laden with value judgment) articles can become Featured, without weakening what it means to be Featured, I'll be happy to read the arguments and toss in my vote. Until then, I'm not willing to weigh in one way or the other; harm could be done either way if I take a shot in the dark. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind and decided that I can support Julian's "storm to nowhere" article, but only after the addition of a hatnote at the top, "See also Effects of tropical cyclones and 2007 Pacific hurricane season." I'm looking for the question of the cumulative impact of storms like these to be answered somewhere, and I think we should point to that right at the start. To the objection that this is a "vanilla" article, and that shorter and drier FAs will create a perception that some people "get off easy" writing FAs: Julian has worked very hard on this article, and he and others had to write the other articles that supplement this one, or I wouldn't be supporting. To the objection that making this article FA will encourage people to write almanac articles rather than improving the articles that more people are actually reading: that's not Julian's problem; if this is the article he wants to write, let him write it, and if he wants to improve it up to FAC standards, fine. We have other ways of encouraging work on the high-traffic articles, such as the weight given to hits per month at WP:V1.0. To G-Guy's objections: I understand that almanac-like articles in Wikipedia are fine; my context was FAC. Also, I understand that this article is boring, but the point is that the impact of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season isn't boring at all, and this article constitutes one piece of that puzzle. If I had my way, I would decide it differently, but I have been persuaded that current consensus sees WIAFA #4 as prohibiting details in this article that can't be tied to this storm. To the objection above that WP:NOT says that my standards of journalistic writing don't apply in Wikipedia: WP:NOT doesn't come close to saying that, it says that Wikipedia is not the news. Standards of professional writing, at least in popular science articles in high-quality newspaper and magazine articles, have always been relevant at FAC. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in its current form. My problem is that I don't know yet what the new phrase "places the subject in context" from WP:FA? means, and I've started a thread at WT:FAC#"places the subject in context" to help me decide. I think the article is very professionally written, but ... well, I'll explain over there. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I've chatted with Julian about this; I want to be clear that I'm trying to discover what the FAC criteria have been all along, not make up an interpretation of "place in context". I'll go gather data on previous FACs and come back with a more detailed argument. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand this oppose. Could you please elaborate further? Thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Sure Julian. It's possible this is not an "actionable" oppose, because you can't take action to bring the article in line with "places the subject in context" if the community hasn't defined what that means yet, and we haven't. But I think a little more discussion for a few days might get us something that's a little clearer.
My two cents: I want to see at least a claim as to the effect on or interest by humans. That claim might be that unusual surfing conditions or beach erosion was caused by the storm, or it was a significant threat to shipping. Or it might be that meteorologists learned something interesting from or about the storm. If you can't find anything about this storm in particular that evoked some kind of reaction, then a trick journalists will use is to use this relatively uninteresting storm as a lead-in to explaining some of the ways that all big storms are interesting. Storms harm ecosystems; they have some (minimal) effects on "dead zones" in the oceans; beach erosion is a significant concern in many places, including Hawaii (and the seawalls we build in response can make the problem worse). There are many gradual effects of storms, and your readers would understand why storms are so interesting to you if you talked about some of that. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Responding to the anticipated objection: yes, I know that in general we try to segregate material into separate articles, so that a discussion of "beach erosion" doesn't usually belong in an article about a storm; people can click on the links. Still, I'm looking for a "good read" in an FA. I'm looking to have some idea of context. I'm fine with "cheating" a little bit to get there, pulling in stuff that is really better covered in other articles, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the main material, and as long as it answers the question, "Why am I reading this article?" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents on that would be that to widen the discussion in the way you describe would be a breach of criterion 4 ironically. Not because of length but because of the article's lack of focus. I also think that to be fair this article must be judged against the criteria as the are now, not as they may be in a few days time. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) To go on about how some storms cause damage, beach erosion, etc. would fail criterion 4. Information about tropical cyclone impact in general can be found at Tropical cyclone, which is linked from this article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could this whole thing be merged in a article Tropical Storms 2007 to get a article with a information content worth to read it?--Stone (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, despite the recent discussion to merge the article, WikiProject tropical cyclones has agreed upon writing articles for each storm, so long as the article meets project standards. Second, if we merged this article on a minor tropical storm into 2007 Pacific hurricane season, Erick's section would be longer than many other storms—even those that made landfall and caused severe damage—so we would be introducing undue weight. Lastly, the article clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, having had significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My humble idea: Make an article uniteresting tropical storms without landfall!--Stone (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't see the humor in this. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with writing an article on each storm. I disagree with featuring them. Geometry guy 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not funny, I agree. The thing I find interesting about Erick, and if more information were available would like to see expanded, is why it was so poorly forecasted. That alone, for me at least, makes Erick noteworthy, and even (dare I say it) interesting. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeWeak oppose. Too boring to feature. The article fails to place the subject in context, because it doesn't have a notable context: "no effects, property damage or fatalities were reported; no ships were affected, and no tropical cyclone warnings and watches were issued" and "due to the lack of any impact, the name Erick was not retired, and is scheduled to be reused for the fifth named storm of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season". In other words, the hurricane was not just boring, but even officially boring. And it isn't even interesting for being the most boring hurricane, since it was only the second most boring of its season, according to the article. This is like an article on the batting averages of a mediocre player in a mediocre baseball team. I don't think articles like this need to be merged or deleted (I am broadly inclusionist). But featuring them is an exercise in futility. Is anyone excited about the idea that this could go on the main page one day? The article is good, maybe as good as it can be, and much credit to Juliancolton for all his efforts. but articles like this aren't our best work. Geometry guy 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What has the main page got to do with this? TFA is an entirely separate process, and as you yourself have pointed out many times it is impossible for every FA to get on the main page in any case. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To oppose a merge because the resulting article would be unbalaned is no point not to merge it. secondary, reliable sources a institute which has no other job than to look for storms would publish all the numbers you want, but this makes it not an interesting article anybody wants to read except the people from National Hurricane Center and they already published everything on their home page.--Stone (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said previously in this discussion, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so it is our job to write about subjects which many people don't find interesting. Also, the articles uses a variety of sources, not just from the National Hurricane Center. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article should exist as a separate article, per Pillar One and WP:Notability.
But should it be featured? At the moment almost any FA is eligible for TFA with no additional criteria other than "Raul decides". That's not a great environment to work in (even if it reflects the name "featured article") but it is where we are now. Geometry guy 22:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relax Geo. Raul isn't going to make this TFA, ever. He keeps a tight lid on what kind of hurricane/storm articles get TFA and how often. Your oppose is therefore not only unactionable, it is based on a future event that will almost certainly never happen. Wrad (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite relaxed actually Wr. It will not spoil my day if this article is featured. I will just shrug and think "it's a funny old world, Wikipedia". My comment probably isn't actionable, unless there are reasons out there why this hurricane is particularly interesting (Malleus suggests above that there might be, but thinks they might not be sourced). The whole idea of actionable comments conflicts with WP:WIAFA however, which is purely about the quality of the article and mentions the word "actionable" precisely zero times. Instead "actionable" is a conduct code for reviewers. If you think my oppose is bad faith, please take it up on my talk page. In the meanwhile, I don't see the benefit in flooding Raul's list of potential TFAs with articles he generally ignores. What purpose does it serve? Geometry guy 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, unactionable to me means that the oppose is not based on the criteria, not that the reviewer's oppose is in bad faith. Second, I don't think you are very aware of the TFA process as it works in practice, only how it works in theory. In theory, yes, Raul could go into zombie mode and pull a random article out of a hat, but that doesn't happen. Please point me to a recent TFA, (in the last year?) that was "boring" in the same way this one is (to you), and then your argument would be stronger. Wrad (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't my point. What purpose does it serve to feature this article? It will never appear on the main page you say. Does it represent Wikipedia's best work? Geometry guy 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Wrad (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose does it serve? To encourage others to reach the same standard of article writing. Does it represent wikipedia's best work? Yes, it does, unless you choose to arbitrarily and unilaterally add "interesting" to the FA criteria. Who cares about the main page anyway? Since when was every FA guaranteed a place on the main page? --Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great. So if you had to showcase how great Wikipedia is, the quality and the detail of its articles, the breadth of its scope, you would pick this one. Geometry guy 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a subjective decision not based on standard criteria. We have standard criteria for a reason. This article meets the set criteria. Wrad (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's an answer. Geometry guy 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just not one I agree with :-) Geometry guy 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that goes without saying. Wrad (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submit that this article fails, in a marginal and perhaps even unactionable way, at least one of 1a, 1b, 2b and 4. I read the article again, and looked at the previous FAC. 1a: is the prose engaging? No it is dull. For example, the first paragraph of the first section is proseline; I was also interested to read Tony1's objection at the previous FAC. 1b: does it place the subject in context? Nope, it now even needs a hatnote to say to the reader, "This article is not very interesting, but these articles are, and if you read them first, you will learn that this was a boring tropical storm which didn't do anything beyond the things that many tropical storms do." 2b: does it have a substantial table of contents? The storm happened. It had no impact. I'm underwhelmed. 4: does it avoid going into unnecessary detail? Read the last paragraph of the first section and decide for yourselves.
In the previous FAC, Juliancolton honestly admitted "I'm trying to set a precedent for FACing less-notable storms". This article presents a very poor case for establishing such a precedent, and I hope that such a precedent will not be established. Why not try instead to make the 2007 Pacific hurricane season into a featured topic? This article provides a GA for that topic. Geometry guy 20:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not trying to set a precedent. I'm simply trying to get this article recognized as Wikipedia's best work. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in response to your concerns about proseline in the lead, I'd like you to take a look at Category:FA-Class Tropical cyclone storm articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The main proseline issue is not the lead, but the first paragraph of the first section. (And I'm afraid comparison with other tropical storm FAs has already been dismissed as an irrelevant argument.) Geometry guy 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if dozens of articles with the same format are featured, that seems like a precedent to me. Regardless, do you have any suggestions as to how the information could be presented in a less timeline-like way? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Say less. At least to a non-expert, the first moment of interest (dare I say that :) was when the wave crossed Central America and formed into a low pressure system in the Eastern Pacific. The preceding events are not worth dating (although the formation could be dated in passing, rather than as the opening of the paragraph). Over-dating also true in the last paragraph, which has four dates, none of which are particularly notable. There's also some personification going on here ("they failed" suggests "they tried"). Geometry guy 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Hope that satisfies some of your concerns, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is a bit better, but you only fixed "it failed" in the last, which still goes into unnecessary detail, using unnecessary and possibly even false precision about the timeline. Geometry guy 19:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed a bunch of dates. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Ok, that's another improvement in my view. Now, unnecessary detail: what does "On August 5, the low-level remnants of Tropical Storm Erick passed south of Hawaii, although they caused no effects on the island." add to the article? I suggest cutting it. Geometry guy 22:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is actually a significant part of the storm's history. It was the only time the storm or its remnants approached land, so I feel it adds context. Will remove if you feel necessary. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my suggestion, stay true to your own judgement. That is the only way to handle conflicting views of different reviewers and I am very much against the "jump through every hoop of every reviewer" culture. If you want to keep the sentence, maybe "no rainfall" is better than "no effects" as that is what the source says. Presumably the wind shifted a bit and there were a few extra clouds :-) Geometry guy 19:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to weak oppose for at least three reasons. (1) The remaining actionable points are disputed. (2) My original oppose was partly intended to raise a general issue with a rhetorical approach (e.g. "boring" rather than "contributes little significant additional content") and that isn't entirely fair. (3) Markus Poessel has made a good case (also with some rhetoric :) at WT:FAC against the general tenet of this kind of oppose. It is a matter of some debate whether every article should have the potential to be an FA, and one like this may not be a good precedent. As I've said before, it won't spoil my day if this is featured, but I still believe that it does not meet 1a, 1b, 2b and 4, so I can't in good faith strike my oppose. Geometry guy 17:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It seems to me that this article does quite a good job of putting the subject in context, particularly in the first sentence--which places it into the context of 2007 hurricane season--and the final section--which is pretty much an explicit discussion of storm's significance that compares it appropriately to other storms. It gives the reader enough information to understand how this storm fits into the broader context of 2007 storms and storms in general. (The failure of some short FA candidates to similarly enable the reader to understand how the topic fits into the most relevant broader contexts seems to have been the motivation for the new context bit; this article doesn't have that shortcoming.)--ragesoss (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It meets the criteria. Let's not misquote and misinterpret the criteria willy-nilly in order to make sure it doesn't pass. Wrad (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to those who aren't sure whether or not it should be merged. Prior to the previous FAC (meaning in a previous and potentially outdated version of the article), I tested whether or not merging the article would make the parent article too long - test here. I also tested the current version - test here. As the season article is not featured (and thus incomplete), you could compare that section to one from 1995, 1998, or 2003. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, that merge test excludes several sentences of info that's in the Erick article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which sentences are those? If they're in the lede, they should be in the body of the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Almost the entire Impact and statistics section. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The entire impact and statistics section is actually just full of naming, which is never included in the season article, and it includes info on Accumulated Cyclone Energy (which is debated on whether it should be there in the first place). There was nothing missing from my test. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Which furthers my belief that this article should be kept separate; otherwise, information is lost. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not at all! The ACE is useless (it already appears in the season article in that table), and the naming stuff is already in the dab article. There's nothing that would be missing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • ACE is cited to a reliable source, so there's nothing wrong with including it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • ACE has been discussed, and there is some agreement in the project to not include it (such as: scientists rarely/never use ACE for individual storms, it's a fairly meaningless/confusing statistic). Also, as I said, the ACE already appears in the seasonal article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That doesn't mean it shouldn't be including within this article. Also, true, a few editors have expressed their opinion against ACE, but there's really no consensus, and I still fail to see a real reason why we shouldn't include it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • You're missing my point. You said the entire Impact and statistics section was missing from that test, and I proved that nothing was missing (by ACE already being in the season article, and the naming being in the dab article). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Also, with the ACE, there's a problem over the sourcing. The NCDC, as the project has uncovered, only uses operational data. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Still, NCDC is a reliable source, so we have to use it rather than our own calculations. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • I disagree with "we have to use it." The site may be reliable normally, but that link is not reliable, as we know the values are operational and not 100% accurate. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Do we have any proof that the information from that site is incorrect? Also, per WP:V, we still have to use the reliable source over what we believe is correct. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Yes, the WPTC went over this a while ago; the site was only updated through the season, thus not reflecting post-season (official) changes. I totally disagree that "we still have to use the reliable source", as 1) we know it's not correct, and 2) it's not needed in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • You haven't answered my question. Regardless of what WPTC thinks, is there any actual evidence that proves NCDC to be incorrect? It really doesn't matter if you disagree with that statement. Per WP:V, a core content policy, ...whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • Yes, I have answered your question. We found that the NCDC only used operational data, which makes it incorrect with regards to post-season changes. It does matter that I disagree with that statement, because using ACE in general is completely optional to begin with. If the source you have for it is not accurate with regards to post-season changes, then the link is not reliable, regardless of where it came from, and thus it shouldn't be in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ← Do we have any proof that NCDC uses operational data, or is this just our belief? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said several times before, we know that NCDC was last updated during the actual season. On the bottom of the page, it clearly says "Last Updated Thursday, 01-Nov-2007 13:38:53 EDT." ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (de-indent) I have an issue that references five and six are the exact same (from two different websites), yet they provide no additional information than reference four (which is the official NHC one). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, primarily due to its potential for it to be merged. Also, the following sentence does not appear in the cited link
    • A weak low pressure system formed along the wave on August 3, although it failed to reorganize into a tropical cyclone as it entered the North Central Pacific.
  • I did another test here, which resulted in a two paragraph section, much like the sections of the featured 1995 season. I removed the aforementioned trouble sentence, as well as the one on the tropical wave (which is not directly related to the storm); I also condensed some needlessly long sentences, and removed usages of the "had" in phrases like "had become". I'm not suggesting that the article should be merged ASAP, rather that I don't think it should be featured due to its easy potential for it to be merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but this oppose is not actionable. It is not up to FAC to decide whether an article should be merged; instead, FAC should try to determine whether an article meets the FA criteria. Is there anything about the article that does not meet the criteria? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Logically, if the article could be merged, then it would fail the stability criterion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Any article might be merged. Also, FWIW, you voted to keep the article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unlike any other article might being merged, I don't think any other FAC's could be merged as easily this one, as the tests have shown. And, no, I didn't "vote" to keep the article. The edit summary said "keep", and the actual edit showed it was a reluctant keep. Just because it was a reluctant keep, doesn't mean I would oppose it being merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Examples of current FAs that are shorter than Erick: Hurricane Irene (2005), 2005 Azores subtropical storm, New York State Route 373. Sure, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but this shows that articles of 10 kb aren't unprecedented at FAC, so there's no higher chance of this being merged than many other nominations. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Neither of those 2005 FA's could be merged, due to the season article being so record-breaking (not to mention featured already). I won't comment on the road one. The point is that this article could be merged very easily, but those, not so much. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Notability is not inherited. Thus, being an active season does not make the storms within it more notable than anything else. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I said before, the articles can't be merged, due to the season being so active, and that it's already featured. This article could fit easily in the 2007 PHS season article, since it's not featured and there wasn't as much information involved with the season. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That doesn't make much sense, as the article clearly meets the notability criteria. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • That's your opinion; I personally think it did not have "substantial coverage in reliable sources" (other than brief mentions in newspapers while it was active, and a few NOAA/NHC documents). WP:MERGE lists "context needed" as a reason for merging, which begs me to ask: was the storm notable on its own, as a random bunch of clouds that didn't affect anyone, or was it notable because it was named and part of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season? I strongly think it is the latter. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • It had more than brief mentions in newspapers. It had full articles written on it in major news agencies like MSNBC and the Associated Press. Of course, the storm was notable as a named tropical cyclone. Tropical cyclones are one of the most widely-covered topics in the media, and have become particularly notable as being associated with global warming. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • When I said "brief mentions", I should clarify. The storm was only written about because most *all* tropical cyclones are written about. The AP source you cite in the article only has 80 words on it, and that was while the storm was active. 80 words, from a few AP stories on the day it was active, would be considered brief by most people. Are there any sources that mention the storm after it dissipated? Saying the following is vague, could you clarify? "Of course, the storm was notable as a named tropical cyclone." Was the storm notable only because it was named? If the storm occurred but wasn't named, would it be as notable? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • No, if the storm was not named, it would not have been notable. Why is that relevant? It was named, and then it became notable. All subjects are notable for a reason. Also, yes, it has received coverage in reliable sources after it dissipated. The TCR, NCDC, and other documents. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                              • The naming is hugely relevant! The point about the naming is that it is arbitrary, done by officials behind a desk with some data. Hurricane Katrina would've been just as notable if it wasn't named; it would've been written about just as much. For storms elsewhere in the world (take Delta 05, or even Vamei for an example), sometimes named storms were written about even if they weren't known to be a storm by the public. You basically agreed it wouldn't be the case for Erick. Its name on the list was why information existed on it, essentially, which is why it should be merged. You listed Erick as appearing in the TCR, the NCDC, and other documents, but its appearance in each of those places was just because it had a name. Whether it is merged or not is not the relevant issue here, but rather its potential to be merged, hence making it instable, which roots back to my opposition to this becoming a featured article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Your oppose is still not actionable. As I said, every article has the potential to be merged someday. So by your theory, every article is unstable and thus ineligible to be featured. This article has no greater chance of merge than anything in Category:Low-importance Tropical cyclone articles. Additionally, you're contradicting yourself; a week ago, you stated that you "would be OK with keeping the article", and now you're opposing this FAC because you think it should be merged. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • Julian, you're still going on with my reluctant keep for the article, before I thought about it further that maybe this should be merged? You were more than willing to merge the article a few months ago. Regarding to the other articles being merged, sure, maybe "someday" every featured article could be merged. My point is that this article could be merged today, without losing any information. That is very obviously not true for any of the other articles up for FAC at the moment. The oppose may be not be unactionable, but it's still a valid reason for why this article should not be featured. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • That doesn't matter. Every article has the potential to be merged within the next five minutes. Why do you think this article has a greater chance of being merged than anything else? Please, consider the reasons why the article should be kept. If it is merged into 2007 Pacific hurricane season, then we have a huge section for Erick and a tiny section for everything else, even the storms that made landfall. Then, if I expand everything else to give the article appropriate weight, the page will become far too long and bloated. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • Yes, it does matter, and I greatly disagree with "Every has the potential to be merged today." There is no chance United States will be merged today. Practically speaking, there is little chance any of the other current FAC's could be merged. If Erick is merged (per my latest test), it would have a two paragraph section, much like that of the sections in the other featured season articles of the basin. That would not make the season too long or bloated, by any means. Therefore, as I've said before, this article could easily be merged, hence my opposition. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ← A couple of points here. First, here is a comprehensive merge tests that uses all suitable information. If merged, Erick's section would be four paragraphs long—2 paragraphs longer than the section for Henriette, a landfalling hurricane. Would you want the section on a minor tropical storm to be longer than the one on a deadly hurricane? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's completely against the purpose of merging. When you merge, you take the relevant facts and merge, not copy and paste the entire article. Compare to my test from earlier. That is a very rough merge of the article, and it could easily be trimmed a bit further (without removing important info) to prevent it from being longer than the other articles. I've said all I can say on this. The article could be easily merged, thus making it unstable. I maintain my oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As well, I maintain my stance that this oppose is not actionable, and a merge is not a viable option. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks to me as if the article should be merged with the storm season article. Re Geometry Guy's comment above: I don't regard this as a deletionist position as I don't think the content should be deleted; I just don't see the value in having a separate article on this storm. I am not opposing on this basis, as I don't see anything in the FA criteria that would let me do so; I would probably oppose if there were such a criterion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just of note, it has been explained above why this article should remain separate. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see two reasons above: the WikiProject decision on whether to have separate articles, which I have respect for but don't feel is binding on FAC; and undue weight, which I don't agree with because it would, if I understand correctly, reflect the fact that the other storms are not yet treated with as much detail, but could be in the future. Mike Christie (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, all of the storms of the season have as much, if not more, information available as Erick does. The content simply hasn't been added yet. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Juliancolton that merging has problems. One is that if this much attention is given to one of the most boring storms of the season, proportionately larger attention should be given to the more interesting ones. The result is likely to be a bloated article. I think summary style is helpful here, but I don't see why each daughter article should aim at FAC. That's appropriate for the storms about which there is something interesting to say, but not for all of them. Geometry guy 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I understand your position, and if "interesting" was one of the FA criteria then I would likely be a little more sympathetic to it. But it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it passes all of the criteria, regardless of length. I doubt this will ever go on the main page as it is; short. However, I have no qualms about giving it that little star in the corner. Side note: Merging is out of the question. Article is verifiable, so therefore is notable. RockManQReview me 02:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I mean Support. Meets criteria. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it matters, but I added an external links section with some documents on the storm. Hopefully this clears up any concerns about whether the article meets notability requirements. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support- because the article statisfies all the FA criteria. There is nothing in the criteria about minimum length or opportunities for merging and since nothing in the article contravenes Wikipedia pollicies I support this candidate. Graham Colm Talk 17:05, 14 December 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_Erick_(2007)&oldid=1126595798"