Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC) [1].
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina edit
- Notified: Titoxd, Tarret, Derek.cashman, WP Tropical cyclones, WP Weather noticed April 16
Review section edit
Nominating this one, as it is one of the older FAs on the WP:URFA/2020 list that has not been checked yet. This one currently fails WP:FACR #1c by a pretty large margin - there is a vast quantity of scholarly literature about Katrina, yet all but one sentence of the body of this article is sourced solely to the National Hurricane Center. Additional scholarly sources need worked into this article for it to meet FACR #`1c. Hog Farm Talk 21:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC - Nothing happening and currently fails FACR #1c by a large bit. Hog Farm Talk 00:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, as noted in nomination, very far from a representative survey of literature. CMD (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist- severe issues with WP:FACR #1c identified in April, with no engagement or improvement. Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - I'm not sure I agree that there are severe issues with 1C, when this article is designed to talk about the Meteorological History of Katrina and not the impacts or warnings issued by local weather forecast offices. This means that stuff like how it developed, where it went, its peak intensity etc is included but not really stuff like how people prepared for the storm. As a result, I am not so certain that there are many sources, which dont repeat what the NHC who as the RSMC for the Atlantic basin said about the system's MH.Jason Rees (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jason Rees: - I'm not quite sure that that statement is accurate. While I'm not a hurricane expert, I've skimmed through this source, which is an entire scholarly article on secondary eyewall formation in Katrina. This scholarly article contains significant analysis of cyclogenesis of Katrina. Or how about "Hurricane Katrina (2005). Part I: Complex Life Cycle of an Intense Tropical Cyclone". "Multiscale Processes Leading to Supercells in the Landfalling Outer Rainbands of Hurricane Katrina (2005)" may be relevant, as well (although I don't quite understand the hurricane stuff enough to say that with certainty). And there's much more like this. The NHC is a valuable resource, but Katrina was so significant that the weather stuff was analyzed in scholarly fashion afterwards, so to essentially only use the NHC and ignore after-the-fact analysis. It's also significant to note that all of the sources are from within 5 months of the storm (latest is December 2005), so not only is it over-reliant on a single source, but it is also only from sources almost contemporaneous with the event, which means that any after-the-fact research into the formation of this storm is not reflected. This is a vast distance from FACR #1c. Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Yes Katrina is significant enough to have had its MH analysed in detail by secondary sources, but I am not sure that I see much in those sources that is much worth putting in that isn't derived from NHC and convince me that this article fails 1C. The MH is designed to talk about how the system developed using facts and not speculation like Galactic Cosmic Rays playing a part in the formation. The first source presented talks about Katrina going through an eyewall replacement cycle as it made landfall on the US, but is very very technical and goes way to in-depth for this article. The second is not a significant analysis of cyclogenesis of Katrina but speculates that Galactic Cosmic Rays played a part in the formation, which is one of a number of possible factors - another could be you being out in Africa during 2005 and playing with the sand. The third could possibly have a few bits that could go in but most is derived from NHC, while the fourth talks about supercells which would only be relevant to this article if we were talking about the tornadoes that Katrina spawned in depth but we arent. Yes the last article used in the article is from 2005 but is that really so bad, when we consider that the MH is the story of Katrina itself and not the warnings or impacts. I will admit that the article needs some work to get it up to today's standards, but I don't think the sources lacking are as bad as you make out unless we want to make this article so technical that the average reader wont be able to follow or understand it. Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess frankly we just have to agree to disagree. To me, a bunch of sources self-identifying as advisories and written during the time the storm was going on are for all practical purposes primary sources, and shouldn't be relied on as heavily as they are relied on here. It's almost (but not quite) like just using the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion to source my current FAC Second Battle of Newtonia because most secondary sources rely very heavily on those Official Records. I guess we just have to disagree here. Pinging Chipmunkdavis who voted to delist earlier, in case this discussion changes their mind, but I'm generally have the opposite view as you as to the appropriateness of just sourcing to NHC, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: As i said in my last reply, the article needs some work and I don't disagree with you that the advisories are primary sources for all essential purposes. However, my general view is that where they are available the advisories should be used to tell the story of tropical cyclones, as they help reduce the reliance on the TCR and other sources that may or may not be available. In the case of this article, most of the advisories cited are used to cite stuff that happened operationally and that the primary source used here is NHC's TCR which was published after the system in December 2005 and last updated by NHC in 2011.Jason Rees (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess my vision for adding other sources would be to use the NHC as sort of the skeleton of the article, and then flesh it out in places with other stuff. For instance, if maybe some of the eyewall formation article is nontechnical enough, it can be used to supplement NHC information about the eyewall (it seems to me that the eyewall material probably wouldn't be hurt through expanding)? Obviously, if the one with the galactical rays is crackpot, it shouldn't be given any weight here. Would "Convective-Scale Downdrafts in the Principal Rainband of Hurricane Katrina (2005)" be useful for these purposes (noting that only part of that article is really in-depth as to Katrina specifically)? Proquest seems to have some decent material for hurricanes, and it's freely available to most editors through WP:TWL. I think the sources exist to supplement the NHC data, while still using the NHC to guide the structure and backbone of the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Since I'm feeling rather stupid, I will see what I can do to try and clean this article up.Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess my vision for adding other sources would be to use the NHC as sort of the skeleton of the article, and then flesh it out in places with other stuff. For instance, if maybe some of the eyewall formation article is nontechnical enough, it can be used to supplement NHC information about the eyewall (it seems to me that the eyewall material probably wouldn't be hurt through expanding)? Obviously, if the one with the galactical rays is crackpot, it shouldn't be given any weight here. Would "Convective-Scale Downdrafts in the Principal Rainband of Hurricane Katrina (2005)" be useful for these purposes (noting that only part of that article is really in-depth as to Katrina specifically)? Proquest seems to have some decent material for hurricanes, and it's freely available to most editors through WP:TWL. I think the sources exist to supplement the NHC data, while still using the NHC to guide the structure and backbone of the article. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: As i said in my last reply, the article needs some work and I don't disagree with you that the advisories are primary sources for all essential purposes. However, my general view is that where they are available the advisories should be used to tell the story of tropical cyclones, as they help reduce the reliance on the TCR and other sources that may or may not be available. In the case of this article, most of the advisories cited are used to cite stuff that happened operationally and that the primary source used here is NHC's TCR which was published after the system in December 2005 and last updated by NHC in 2011.Jason Rees (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess frankly we just have to agree to disagree. To me, a bunch of sources self-identifying as advisories and written during the time the storm was going on are for all practical purposes primary sources, and shouldn't be relied on as heavily as they are relied on here. It's almost (but not quite) like just using the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion to source my current FAC Second Battle of Newtonia because most secondary sources rely very heavily on those Official Records. I guess we just have to disagree here. Pinging Chipmunkdavis who voted to delist earlier, in case this discussion changes their mind, but I'm generally have the opposite view as you as to the appropriateness of just sourcing to NHC, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: Yes Katrina is significant enough to have had its MH analysed in detail by secondary sources, but I am not sure that I see much in those sources that is much worth putting in that isn't derived from NHC and convince me that this article fails 1C. The MH is designed to talk about how the system developed using facts and not speculation like Galactic Cosmic Rays playing a part in the formation. The first source presented talks about Katrina going through an eyewall replacement cycle as it made landfall on the US, but is very very technical and goes way to in-depth for this article. The second is not a significant analysis of cyclogenesis of Katrina but speculates that Galactic Cosmic Rays played a part in the formation, which is one of a number of possible factors - another could be you being out in Africa during 2005 and playing with the sand. The third could possibly have a few bits that could go in but most is derived from NHC, while the fourth talks about supercells which would only be relevant to this article if we were talking about the tornadoes that Katrina spawned in depth but we arent. Yes the last article used in the article is from 2005 but is that really so bad, when we consider that the MH is the story of Katrina itself and not the warnings or impacts. I will admit that the article needs some work to get it up to today's standards, but I don't think the sources lacking are as bad as you make out unless we want to make this article so technical that the average reader wont be able to follow or understand it. Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jason Rees: - I'm not quite sure that that statement is accurate. While I'm not a hurricane expert, I've skimmed through this source, which is an entire scholarly article on secondary eyewall formation in Katrina. This scholarly article contains significant analysis of cyclogenesis of Katrina. Or how about "Hurricane Katrina (2005). Part I: Complex Life Cycle of an Intense Tropical Cyclone". "Multiscale Processes Leading to Supercells in the Landfalling Outer Rainbands of Hurricane Katrina (2005)" may be relevant, as well (although I don't quite understand the hurricane stuff enough to say that with certainty). And there's much more like this. The NHC is a valuable resource, but Katrina was so significant that the weather stuff was analyzed in scholarly fashion afterwards, so to essentially only use the NHC and ignore after-the-fact analysis. It's also significant to note that all of the sources are from within 5 months of the storm (latest is December 2005), so not only is it over-reliant on a single source, but it is also only from sources almost contemporaneous with the event, which means that any after-the-fact research into the formation of this storm is not reflected. This is a vast distance from FACR #1c. Hog Farm Talk 22:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: - Work's been going on, but there's still an entire uncited paragraph in the second and third landfalls section, and it's still almost entirely sourced to contemporaneous reports/advisories, which I still view as somewhat problematic as per above, but others have split opinions on. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since Hog Farm's comment above, there has been minimal work on this article, and there is still an uncited paragraph. Is anyone still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Still sourced almost entirely to government reports while neglecting academic literature on this storm. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't use the government reports, but in order to meet FACR #1c, there's also going to have be use of the academic literature to support the government reports. We can't just ignore a sizable portion of the literature on this topic because it isn't as convenient. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Unsourced statements include "likely existed". The reader is referred to another wikipedia article in support of the claim "in excess of $1 billion", but the claim there is $70 billion, which makes $1 billion look under-estimated. Besides, using other articles as sources or directly referring to them in running text ("see A. N. Other article") indicates structural problems or poor prose. If the other article is worth looking at or related, it should be wiki-linked in the usual way. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - Concerns remain on unsourced statements and reliance on government reports. No significant edits since June. Z1720 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.