Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States hurricanes

< 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 promoted 23:23, 18 May 2008.

List of United States hurricanes edit

I wrote this a few months back, and I think it would make for a good featured list. I think it's interesting, since it is a nice representation for every hurricane that affected the United States, and I believe it passes the FL criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • In-text external links are generally disliked, and I believe it's a MoS breach..not sure.
  • ...the data from 1921 to 1979..' Needs non-breaking spaces.
  • Why are Pennsylvania and the South west's sections in prose and not in a table like the rest?
  • I'd like to see more sources, but it should be fine.

That's all from me. Overall, good work. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I don't see anywhere in the MOS that says the first item was a problem, so I'm leaving it. Since most of the article uses it, I feel it is important to link when it is mentioned. Pennsylvania and Southwest's sections only had one hurricane, so there is no need for a table. The article is comprehensive with those links, so I don't see a need for more sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
1)The article heavily relies on one source, is there any other sources out there that can verify the information in the article?
2)In some states, there are unnamed hurricanes, yet they still have a link to an article, and they have a name, justification?
3)In response to the comment above about the MOS and internal linking, it is ok to do that, as there is nothing here.

Regards,--~SRS~ 22:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright. For the first one, there are other similar links, but that is the best comprehensive link available. HURDAT is the official database for Atlantic hurricanes. The unnamed storms did not have an official name. A select few had a name provided by the U.S. weather bureau, but even those names aren't the most ideal. Some were merely the place it affected (like if a hurricane hit Florida, it would be inappropriate to call it "Florida" if it also affected another state). Since most of the names were unofficial, I opted to consider them all unnamed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see ok im satisfied with the above, but the lead also requires some sourcing, like the total number of hurricanies.--~SRS~ 02:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That information in the lede is merely from the body of the article, adding up all of the storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "greater than 74 mph (118 km/h)" why? Presumably on some Scale that means hurricane. Worth a note for non-experts, otherwise it appears an arbitrary cut-off point.
  • "Continental United States Hurricane Strikes " -> "Continental United States hurricane strikes" in the caption.
  • Some issues over linking single years. The links need to go somewhere to enhance the reader's understanding and enrich their experience of this article. Not sure linking plain years (like 1851 in the lead) does this.
  • Remove the in-line link to the Hurricane Research Division. If it's necessary, add it as an External link.
  • Like the idea of the clickable US map but it seems strange, just sitting there without a frame, a caption or an explanation as to what it's for.
  • Hmm, splitting the table has caused me no end of sorting problems.
    • Clicking on the Date of closest approach and the second of the two Storm headings takes me to the top of the page.
    • Clicking on the first Storm heading
    • Clicking on the category (small c here by the way), brings the last line up to the top - this line should always be at the bottom presumably.
    • You can't sort the two sides of the table together so it only means you can sort half the hurricanes at a time.
  • What's HURDAT? Used a lot, never explained.
  • Unless I missed it, a note explaining why many "Unnamed" hurricanes link out to hurricanes why, to a layman, appear to have names would be useful.
  • Why is this a list of hurricanes and then the heading in the table "Storm"? Again, might be plainly obvious to you, but to a non-expert, like me, if I've asked the question, it probably needs to be answered.

Some opening comments from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I clarified the 74 mph cutoff, fixed the capitalization, removed some year links, and rm'd the inline link. I added a caption to the US map, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate. Yea, I notice the problems with the tables, so before I do anything drastic, do you think I should turn the tables into single rows? HURDAT is merely the HURricane DATabase, which I added to the top. For the unnamed storms, see my explanation above. If you think clarification is needed in the article, I'll do it. I changed the "Storm" header to "Name", which also makes mentioning the unnamed storms more sense. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd opt for the tables to either be non-sortable (bit of a shame) or in a single column (so the sorting works but the article becomes longer)... your choice! Either way it's unacceptable at the moment. See what works best for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had tried both of them while working on the article, and I found the single column to be too long. I personally don't see too much value in sorting by name, and there are only five categories, not to mention that a list of hurricanes by strength (pressure) to hit the US is available elsewhere. Sorting by calendar dates would be nice, but there isn't too much variation. However, think of that, I decided to add a table at the bottom of the article. Still, I'd rather keep the list manageable (such as for the more affected areas). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can you tell me how accurate and complete Image:Hurr-uslandfalling-1950-2007.jpg is. When I look at Hurricane Katrina (the only name I looked for) it is depicted as Cat 3.
  • Have you ever thought of creating a template of Hurricanes so that I can just go to the bottom of any of your hurricane articles and bounce to the other state I want to see or the ocean or category or whatever other logical grouping of TCs I am interested in.
  • Hurricanes seem to be listed by where they made landfall in this article. Some hurricanes cause havoc inland. Have any inland states such as TN, AK, or WV encountered TCs at hurricane strength? Do you have articles for such states?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the template to the bottom of the article. Also, no known hurricanes caused hurricane force winds in TN, AK, or WV. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • GA and PA had hurricanes, which is why they are listed in the article. I have found no info on DC, which is why it's not in the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it that only two named storms have affected GA? and none DC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georgia used to get affected by a lot of hurricanes, but for whatever reason, they have been largely spared in recent decades. It's not that no hurricanes ever affected DC. There is just no source that I've found that confirms hurricane force winds in the district. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Why is everything in the table in bold? It isn't necessary. Also the image map should lonk to a hurricane article or nothing. There is no usefullness in linking to state articles, and it violated the principle of least surprise to not known where it goes before you click on it. Rmhermen (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding everything in the article being bolded, before I change it, do you propose that nothing in the article be bolded, excluding the tops of each section? Regarding the map, I suppose I didn't think that through too much. Do you even think it is needed? I thought it would be neat, but I wouldn't mind seeing it removed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think headings should be bold. I don't think every item needs to be bolded though. It can't draw attention to everything. What purpose does the bolding serve? Rmhermen (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I de-bolded everything but the headings. What about the map? Should I axe it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went over it with a fine-toothed comb, and I'm satisfied with the quality of the prose to satisfy criterion #1. Support, albeit biasedly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were addressed, Support.--SRX 16:59, 18 May 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_list_candidates/List_of_United_States_hurricanes&oldid=1138434372"