Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Floyd

Hurricane Floyd[edit]

This a slight self-nom on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones; I myself have contributed relatively little to the article. It's been through a peer review and was recently assessed and was recommended to FAC. Some final changes were made, and it now looks ready. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am beyond impressed at how much this article has grown in just the last month. --Golbez 02:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I have added a lot to this article, and think that this is good enough for FA. Hurricanehink 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like hurricanehink I've done a lot of work on this article so I'm biased. The only thing that might be left to add is a section on the long-term aftermath - many of the areas affected are poor rural communities that have been made much poorer by the storm. However this is something that is really optional for the article; it might not even be time to write it for a few more years. — jdorje (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks pretty good at a quick glance, I played around with the formatting. Deckiller 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's decent read, has the major events and is adequately linked...just wish the images were a bit bigger in a few situations, but that's not enough to take away from the rest of the excellent work.--MONGO 11:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work. Jkelly 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent job. Coffeeboy 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great work. Rlevse 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Awesome work! —Eternal Equinox | talk 01:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC) ~~Reluctant object.~~ Is there a reason why in excess of ten images are featured to demonstrate each figure of the hurricane? I'd love to support if one or two were removed, because in my opinion, there are just far too many, whether they are registered under fair use rationale, in the public domain, etc. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I just took a glance, and I don't think I see any redundant images, except perhaps the large flood map of coastal NC. --Golbez 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be a little more specific? What do you mean by "each figure of the hurricane"? The only problem with pictures I'd see is in the North Carolina section, because there are simply a lot of them even after we moved a couple into other sections. None of them are redundant but they might be too clumped. — jdorje (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought up the picture discussion at the talk page. Hurricanehink 22:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I removed the photograph of flooding in the North Carolina section because there is another picture of flooding in the Virginia section. Hopefully that clears up the problem. (Posted as an edit conflict with Hurricanehink...) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is better now, although I'm still hesitant on supporting the nomination because of one image: Image:Floyd- Traffic.jpg. What role does it play? Is it really signifcant to the article? The image could easily be deposited into several articles with a caption reading: "People are on their way from this location" or "This was the traffic in 1997". Its presence doesn't really interest me, for lack of a better word. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is an image of the evacuation during the hurricane. Hurricanehink 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree, that image is useless. The only interesting thing it shows is the contraflow lane reversal. However we don't know where it is and there's no way even to confirm that it was taken during Floyd. The image has no source given (just a link to the original image, not the document that it comes from). — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's gone. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can't of a single thing wrong with this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very detailed without having too much information, and I cannot see anything wrong either. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object on minor grounds:
- Lead section could do with being a bit longer. Three paragraphs would be ideal.
- First sentence A tropical wave exited the coast of Africa on 2 September reads as if it bears no relation to the hurricane. Suggest rewording to The genesis of Hurricane Floyd can be traced back to a tropical wave which originated near the coast of Africa on 2 September 1999.
- while void of deep convection - do you mean devoid?
- What is an eyewall replacement cycle?
- A strong mid- to upper-level trough eroded the western portion of the ridge - I don't understand this.
- at its peak tropical storm-force winds spanned a diameter of 580 miles - might be useful to compare this to other well known hurricanes.
- ...became extratropical...' - what does this mean?
- Although Floyd's track prediction was above average while out at sea, the forecasts as it approached the coastline were merely average - what does this mean? Who determines whether a forecast is good or bad, and what is 'average'?
- If water entered the system - which system?
- Also, a thorough read through with fresh eyes would be good, there are quite a few small grammatical errors and sentences where a slight rephrase could greatly improve clarity. I just did some editing of these but I'm sure more can be done.Worldtraveller 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For terms like subtropical ridge, extratropical storm, and eyewall replacement cycle, is it sufficient to include a link to their articles or is a full explanation needed within every article that these terms are used in? — jdorje (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - A link to an article, with a brief explanation of a few words as well, would be absolutely perfect. Worldtraveller 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To "become extratropical" means that the storm loses tropical characteristics (which the article says), "tropical characteristics" meaning that it is powered by the energy released by evaporation and condensation (which the article doesn't say). Is the current wording really not enough? — jdorje (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thing is, 'extratropical' is not a word I've come across, and I expect most people wouldn't know what it means. It sounds a bit like specialist jargon, and that makes readers switch off. I would probably suggest omitting the word, explaining that the storm lost its tropical characteristics (explaining what they are) and link to extratropical storm. I think that would be a lot clearer. Worldtraveller 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - When a tropical storm loses its tropical characteristics and becomes extratropical becomes an important event in the history of the storm. I'll add a link to Extratropical cyclone, if that's ok? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that the term is important (it is very common usage), but we do have to be careful to give short explanations when we use a technical term like this. Not sure about "eyewall replacement cycle" (how would you describe that except as a "cycle where the eyewall is replaced"?), so simply adding a link is probably okay there. — jdorje (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I clarified the "average forecasts" sentence. The "average" referred to is the 10-year average; the NHC always assesses their forecasts in every hurricane report by making this comparison (of course since forecasting will improve over the course of 10 years, most hurricanes' forecasts exceed the 10-year average, so an "average" forecast is not very good). Anyway, the wording here could probably be improved but I'm not sure how. — jdorje (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well-written. Gflores ^Talk 22:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]