Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NESIS storms/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:45, 31 March 2010 [1].

List of NESIS storms

edit

List of NESIS storms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because it fills a gap, gives orphaned storm articles a place to thrive, and is informative. I wrote it mostly from scratch, and believe it fulfills all the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Why is March 1993 (scored 11.52) ranked above Jan 1996 (scored 11.54)?
  • More description of how that score is calculated is really needed.
  • "This page documents" isn't really brilliant prose. Generally try to avoid things like "This list" or "this page". The source information belongs in the references, anyways. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly type—fixed.
    I don't really agree. If it's needed, it can go in the main NESIS article, not the list of storms.
    How else would I word it? Sometimes brilliance must be compromised for accuracy and clarity. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The details of the source information isn't really necessary. I don't note, for example, that "This page documents XYZ draft picks of the Kansas City Royals listed on Baseball-Reference.com" That is established by the entries on the table and the references for them. I could see the whole second paragraph reworded more as:
"77 storms have been rated on the NESIS scale. The most rare category is "extreme", with only two storms, and the most common "notable", encompassing 24 events. XYZ of the storms occured between December and March, with ABC occuring from April to November. Five storms are currently listed based on preliminary data."
That's not true, though. Theoretically, there could be hundreds or thousands of storms to which NESIS may be applied; the 77 listed here are simply the most organized and documented. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, this isn't all the storms it's been applied to? Then the biggest thing this list needs is {{Dynamic list}}. And I would still say you don't have to spell out where the data is coming from in the lead. List it as a reference, that covers it. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's better to specify a strict scope rather than leave readers without a clue as to how the selection of entries is chosen. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mkay. In any case Dynamic list is definitely needed. I would, at most, leave it as something like "Available sources document 77 storms scored on the NESIS scale", eg. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if it sets a strict scope, it's not dynamic. And saying "Available sources say..." violates WP:WEASEL. This page has a scope, and it's not meant to vaguely hint at other definitions. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's what you mean by strict scope I completely disagree. This isn't List of NESIS storms documented in XYZ, this is List of NESIS storms. List of brain tumor patients, or any of our alumni lists, don't specify only particular sources. They are a grouping of all available data on the subject at hand. What you are suggesting is an article I think would have to be List of NESIS storms described in Northeast Snowstorms, and I don't think that article passes WP:GNG. List of NESIS storms (assuming there is no perfect list of all storms) is almost a textbook example, in my opinion, of a dynamic list. Loads of potential entries but you only have a limited number of them documented. You can't change this by arbitrarily limiting a broad list to two sources just because that's what you have. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno. That's better, with the dynamic list note, but my problem with this (now knowing there are thousands of storms) is the same as the problem I leveled with the US politicians who've used cannabis list. I don't mind dynamic lists, but they have to come close to some reasonable level of meeting criteria 3a. Again, brain tumor patients and alumni lists list hundreds upon hundreds of entries. As with the cannabis list I don't feel like I can oppose over this, but I don't feel I can support either. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I wanted to go with my previous idea... I guess I'll withdraw this FLC if it means the quality has to be compromised to get it passed. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So soon? Maybe it's a good idea to wait a couple days and ask other editors (including those from the hurricane project) for their opinion before throwing in the towel. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was your previous idea? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note several fixes, like removing source details, reordering April and November (since otherwise November to April sounds like the same time period as December to March, just with one month more on either side), and a period on the end. Maybe include more facts like most active years, things like that. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep tinkering with it. Let me know when it's good. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you include the table from the NOAA website of the corresponding NESIS score, category, and description? I know that above you said details belong at the main NESIS page, but understanding the NESIS scale is crucial to a list about NESIS storms.
  • Speaking of that, the NOAA site lists completely different values than those in the table. March 12-14 1993 is listed as 12.52 on the table, 13.20 on the NOAA site, eg. Which is "correct"? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where data between the two sources differed, I used the book. Should I clarify that in a footnote or something? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think so, I was rather surprised to see different values in one of the article sources. Why do you think the book is more reliable than the NOAA site? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book was written by the meteorologists who developed NESIS. :-) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Yes then, I'd stick a footnote on the "NESIS rank" at the top of the table (or in the key, when you add it) noting that you are doing this. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "occur in the latter category" why not just "are in the latter category"?
  • How is it similar to the other scales?
  • "the population aspect of a storm's impact" do you mean "the number of people directly affected by the storm"?
  • "7 post-2004 " I think it's a fair call to say "seven post-2004" here.
  • "The most rare category is "extreme", with only two storms," - isn't "most rare" actually "rarest"? And haven't you already said this in the first paragraph?
  • The February 2010 link is misleading as it links to a storm, not a date.
  • "Five recent storms..." what's the definition of recent? Post-book publication..?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done most of these. What kind of additional information are you looking for? The actual algorithm used, or just general climatology data? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think, while the lead image is interesting, it's not clear to me how the NESIS value is derived still. Perhaps you can explain this more fully in the lead.
    • I'd like more description of the algorithm because the image used seems quite complex and requires some level of knowledge of moderately complicated mathematical ideas.
  • How does the numbering system work? Are 8 and 9 the wrong way round?
  • Ref 4 is a footnote, not a reference.
  • Aren't 23 & 24 really 23=?
  • Same with 28 & 29. If not then a note as to how the fractions are dealt with would be useful.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What's the status on TRM's comments? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I fixed many of them, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how to add more information. I'd have no idea how to add the mathematical algorithms and such. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert either but it's really important that the lead clearly and concisely explains how the values for these storms are calculated. Sorry if that's a pain, but I think it's essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One issue is that the method of calculation might differ from the original Northeast Snowstorms book to the current NCDC records. I'm not sure how to verify that (I'm not even sure it's accurate), but this is getting a bit difficult. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little more history/details would be nice, such as in a section outside the lede and before the actual list. Was there ever a similar scale before that ranked nor'easters? When was the scale even created, and why? Is the scale used at all by the public, or even the private sector for that matter? You have the diagram on the top-right of the page, but it'd be nice seeing in the article how it's tabulated. My feeling is that the stubby Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale should be merged/redirected to the list, since you covered most of that content already. I just feel the current list is a bit lackluster, and maybe some of what I recommended could give it a nice touch. If I had to vote, I'd oppose per 3b, since I think those details are important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the list not substantial enough to stand on its own? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I privately left you comments. I feel some basic info is needed, such as when the scale was invented, and why, who uses it (anyone other than NCDC?) and why. Regarding substantialness, I feel the current NECIS article is not substantial enough on its own, especially since this scale is so new, which is why I think the NECIS should be moved to the list article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (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_list_candidates/List_of_NESIS_storms/archive1&oldid=353168589"