Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ismael

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 06:16, 31 January 2007.

Hurricane Ismael[edit]

Another hurricane GA, part of the series on retired Pacific hurricanes, a featured topic candidate. It's quite comprehensive, and appears to meet the various featured article criteria. This is not a self-nomination - Hurricanehink and others have done a great deal of work with this article. --Coredesat 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The only thing I can think of would be to add more Spanish sources, though as an English speaker who knows limited Spanish (with a lot of the rest of the WPTC not speaking Spanish) that might be inactionable. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work here. Jay32183 03:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. icelandic hurricane #12 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the first sentence, the term "minimal hurricane" isn't explained (it may be obvious to you, but I have no background knowledge of hurricanes). And has the sentence beginning Officials distributed 4,800 sheets... got a reference? Trebor 18:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Minimal hurricane means the lower end of a hurricane. I can't think of any other way to explain it in the article. I added the reference to that sentence, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, then I'll support (although I still think "minimal" is a bit confusing). Trebor 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed it to "weak", which might be a bit clearer (though "minimal" expresses more precisely that Ismael was hardly above the minimum hurricane strength). —Cuiviénen 01:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I always like articles from Tropical cyclones project. Really good. All well-referenced, only a quibble note in the first paragraph of the Storm History sction. I was a bit confused with "The system quickly organized, with Dvorak classifications beginning later that day." Perhaps rewording or edit the comma or something like that. — Indon (reply) — 19:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article with a good depth of information. Looks like it passes all the guidelines to me. Hello32020 20:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref #12 doesn't seem to go anywhere. I can't tell what it was supposed to be.--Rmky87 05:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Booksworm Talk to me! 08:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC) This article is way too short! There are articles longer that have been rejected![reply]
    • That's not exactly an actionable objection. FA criteria asks for comprehensiveness, not length. If you feel the article fails to cover something that it should, feel free to bring it up. Gzkn 08:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose doesn't stand out to me the way an FA should. Just seems like a good competent article, just because there is nothing wrong with an article doesn't mean it should be an FA there has to be a lot of things right with it, it has to stand out. Quadzilla99 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that actionable? To be fair, have you checked out any of the other featured tropical cyclone articles? Are you saying all of them have something that stands out, or that not all of them deserve featured status despite a consensus by the community? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should contain more compelling prose, perhaps personal accounts, quotes from government officals, or some other material to make it the opposite of what it is now; namely a dry, lifeless recounting of a historical incident. Quadzilla99 01:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is an encyclopedia. It's not supposed to be emotional or retell the story. It is supposed to be an unbiased, and yes, to some extent, lifeless recounting of a historical event. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Technically I don't actually have to even explain my opposition so don't get defensive. Also explaining Wikipedia to me is clearly a statement meant to bait me into an argument. Compelling prose would apply to more than a completely dry retelling of events. Quadzilla99 02:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I spent several hours working on it, so I am a bit defensive. With fifteen other successful tropical cyclone FAC's of mine along with some featured lists, I get defensive on articles I've spent my time on, which numbers in the hundreds. Can you tell me specifically where I can improve the prose, or provide an actionable objection? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, you do have to explain your opposition - see the top of the page, where it says, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." —AySz88\^-^ 02:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, are you going to answer my objections? What makes this article stand out? Why do you think it should be featured? What prose is compelling? (site one line please). Quadzilla99 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's an excellent article on a Pacific hurricane that caused significant deaths and damage (something that does not happen often). On the other hand, it is also not Hurricane Katrina (nor should you expect any hurricane FA to be anything like that article). We're not a newspaper or a novel-writing service. As Hurricanehink stated, this is an encyclopedia. There does not appear to be anything actionable in your concerns. --Coredesat 04:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree. Give an example of an "uncompelling" line and how it could be improved. Vague references to the prose not being compelling (which is subjective and normally dependent on the user's interest in the subject matter) aren't actionable complaints. Trebor 07:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Unremarkable article. Perhaps expanding the impact section with photos of the damage and more accounts of the effects would make it better then half of the articles I could find by clicking random article. Harvey100 10:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This storm occurred 12 years ago. Finding impact pictures that can be used at all is nearly impossible. As for accounts, most of the damage was in Mexico. There are none, and again, we are not here to write something designed to invoke emotion - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. --Coredesat 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Ismael&oldid=1138463517"