Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 21:22, 22 December 2007.
- 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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: Other comments. fail. Juliancolton (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes[edit]
I am putting List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes up for FLC because I feel it is a very good article, and it matches all criteria. Juliancolton (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments (I copyedited the article somewhat).
- Why is Atlantic hurricane reanalysis linked in the 1851-1900 section?
- A source is needed for the NHC statistic on 1 Cat. 4 hurricane every 8 years, as well as the statement on gusts in the stats section. Also, a source is needed (ideally a better source) is needed for how the winds are measured.
- All links need to be converted to {{cite web}}.
- Please add knots to the intensity tables.
- Double check HURDAT and AMS for the missing pressure listings
--Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I don't know why the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis was linked to the section. I think that was Titoxd that did that. And I will do the other stuff. Juliancolton (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those unsource sentences don't have any reliable places I could link them to, so I just took them out, assu,ing they are not factually accurite.
As for the knots, is there any better way of doing that, rather than just looking at every number, and coverting it on some website or calculator?Juliancolton (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those unsource sentences don't have any reliable places I could link them to, so I just took them out, assu,ing they are not factually accurite.
- First, I don't know why the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis was linked to the section. I think that was Titoxd that did that. And I will do the other stuff. Juliancolton (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Juliancolton (talk) 13:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A sentence on how winds a measured would be more important than how the pressure is recorded, since Cat. 4 is based on winds, not pressure. The knots in the table should be rounded, and please double check your sources (such as Hurdat and AMS that I provided above); I found a source for the pressure of the 1882 hurricane in Hurdat. As it stands, the pressure listings are not comprehensive. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The HURDAT websited won't come up on my computer. And I thought the knots were rounded to the nearest 5. Juliancolton (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please find a way to access the site (try opening in different internet browsers), and the knots need to be rounded to 5 or 10; 122 and 113 kts is incorrect. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I got it. i will start working on it now. Juliancolton (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That HURDAT data was really confusing. It misses so many storms, and the numbers of the storms are messed up too. Juliancolton (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You just have to know how to use it. Just go into data by year, and follow the links to the 1882 one. Since HURDAT only goes up to 1914, the remainder you'll have to rely on MWR reports. You should search more thorough for the remainder of the pressure listings. Check the season articles, as, for example, the 1932 Cat. 4 hurricane has a pressure listed in the article, but it's not in the table. I'd like more statistics on Category 4 hurricanes, such as specifics on where they form, how strong they get, how destructive they get, how often they occur, etc. The Wikilinks in the tables are wrong. Please make sure that they are linked to the article you wish them to go to; Hurricane Harvey should not be linked to the dab (should be to the section season article), and likewise with Hurricane Edouard (which should be linked to the Edouard article). The listed by month section isn't terribly useful, given that we don't know which storm achieved the intensity in what month. Did any Cat. 4 hurricanes reach the status more than once? The fact that the article excludes Cat. 5 hurricanes should be much earlier. Oppose for now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have got the information, but I won't be able to do the work untill later because I have to go to a party. Where can I find the MWR? Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This site has a monthly weather archive; you just have to enter the appropriate search terms (maybe try "October 1932" to get storms in 1932). --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I got into the HURDAT website, and I got a few more pressures, but I think some of the pressure will not be available. I did the other stuff like redirect the links, and round the knots. Juliancolton (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there is a problem with sourcing, since the reference provided only cites the best track. Additionally, the archive I provided has pressures for many of the storms with missing pressures. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I have a ref for every storm? Juliancolton (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say in the prose above that the table that all listings are from that one source, unless otherwise noted. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I wish i could get to those archives. My computer won't show PDF or any other files. Juliancolton (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say in the prose above that the table that all listings are from that one source, unless otherwise noted. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Should I have a ref for every storm? Juliancolton (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there is a problem with sourcing, since the reference provided only cites the best track. Additionally, the archive I provided has pressures for many of the storms with missing pressures. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I got into the HURDAT website, and I got a few more pressures, but I think some of the pressure will not be available. I did the other stuff like redirect the links, and round the knots. Juliancolton (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This site has a monthly weather archive; you just have to enter the appropriate search terms (maybe try "October 1932" to get storms in 1932). --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have got the information, but I won't be able to do the work untill later because I have to go to a party. Where can I find the MWR? Juliancolton (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You just have to know how to use it. Just go into data by year, and follow the links to the 1882 one. Since HURDAT only goes up to 1914, the remainder you'll have to rely on MWR reports. You should search more thorough for the remainder of the pressure listings. Check the season articles, as, for example, the 1932 Cat. 4 hurricane has a pressure listed in the article, but it's not in the table. I'd like more statistics on Category 4 hurricanes, such as specifics on where they form, how strong they get, how destructive they get, how often they occur, etc. The Wikilinks in the tables are wrong. Please make sure that they are linked to the article you wish them to go to; Hurricane Harvey should not be linked to the dab (should be to the section season article), and likewise with Hurricane Edouard (which should be linked to the Edouard article). The listed by month section isn't terribly useful, given that we don't know which storm achieved the intensity in what month. Did any Cat. 4 hurricanes reach the status more than once? The fact that the article excludes Cat. 5 hurricanes should be much earlier. Oppose for now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That HURDAT data was really confusing. It misses so many storms, and the numbers of the storms are messed up too. Juliancolton (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I got it. i will start working on it now. Juliancolton (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please find a way to access the site (try opening in different internet browsers), and the knots need to be rounded to 5 or 10; 122 and 113 kts is incorrect. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
<--*Well, that's fine for now, as long as you rectify that in the future, but there are some other problems. The writing in the lede is poor. more extensive curtainwall failures - what does this mean? The statistics section largely just gives examples about the damage, so either it should be retitled or it should give more info about actual statistics. The article still doesn't say what time of year each of the hurricanes attained Cat. 4 status. Are there any more sources? --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, how do I list the month? Juliancolton (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I list the months that the storm existed? Many of the storms were active for more than one month. Juliancolton (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the article you should be experimenting with what works best. Furthermore, now that statistics was retitled as Damage Characteristics (which, BTW, is a MOS violation), I'd like to see information on statistics. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I am being a pain in the neck here, asking too many questions-but, what kind of statistics do you want to see? Juliancolton (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just copy and paste myself; such as specifics on where they form, how strong they get, how destructive they get, how often they occur, etc.. And please find more sources on the subject matter. 6 is fairly low. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I will get right on that. Juliancolton (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just copy and paste myself; such as specifics on where they form, how strong they get, how destructive they get, how often they occur, etc.. And please find more sources on the subject matter. 6 is fairly low. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I am being a pain in the neck here, asking too many questions-but, what kind of statistics do you want to see? Juliancolton (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As the author of the article you should be experimenting with what works best. Furthermore, now that statistics was retitled as Damage Characteristics (which, BTW, is a MOS violation), I'd like to see information on statistics. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I list the months that the storm existed? Many of the storms were active for more than one month. Juliancolton (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 1900-1950 table just isn't working, when I put the months in it. I don't know what I am doing wrong with that table. Juliancolton (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this article largely relies on tables, I strongly suggest you read guides on how to make tables. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What page do I go to for that? Juliancolton (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Help:Table. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What page do I go to for that? Juliancolton (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty quiet around here, other than you, Hink. :) Anybody else is welcome to post any suggestions you have. Juliancolton (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the months are done. Do you support yet? Juliancolton (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There are still several typos. Some of the numbers that should be rounded are not rounded. The Wikilinking could be better (you link to hurricanes, which is incorrect; the links to the storms should be to the storms and not the season). Those pressures are missing (and there's no sourcing to those pressures that do not link to Hurdat). The article does not make any reference to when storms were first classified as Category 4 hurricanes. There are some weird punctuation things, as well (strong nature..). It also has some MOS breaches. It needs more thorough work; I'd really like to see some more sources on these strong hurricanes, as well more statistics. Simply put, I oppose this becoming a featured list. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the storm does not have an article? Then can I link them to their season? And what do you mean by there's no sourcing to those pressures that do not link to Hurdat? Juliancolton (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, link to the section article within the season article. Also, the article says All data listed is provided by the NHC best track, unless otherwise noted. However, there is no case where it is otherwise noted. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is a case where it is otherwise noted. Unless HURDAT is. Juliancolton (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there wasn't, then why would that notice be there? And there clearly is, because we discussed earlier that the storm in 1932 and in 1882 did not have pressures in the best track. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But HURDAt is the best track...isn't it? And that's where I got those from. Juliancolton (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the other way around. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My only question now is why is there still nobody here besides you. The other FACs or FLCs have almost the whole project on it. Juliancolton (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know; I'd imagine some people don't feel interested in this topic. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My only question now is why is there still nobody here besides you. The other FACs or FLCs have almost the whole project on it. Juliancolton (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's the other way around. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But HURDAt is the best track...isn't it? And that's where I got those from. Juliancolton (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If there wasn't, then why would that notice be there? And there clearly is, because we discussed earlier that the storm in 1932 and in 1882 did not have pressures in the best track. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, but the saffir simpson scale FAC has the whole project leaving comments. oh, well. Juliancolton (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, it's about the interest in the topic. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I guess so. I added a little more in the statistics area about the inrease in the number of cat 4 hurricanes. I don't know if that should go in climatology, though. Juliancolton (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, it's about the interest in the topic. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, but the saffir simpson scale FAC has the whole project leaving comments. oh, well. Juliancolton (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If I withdraw from the nomination (for now :), could I put it up for GAC? Juliancolton (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, GAC is only for articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. I wish I knew what to do with this supid article. Juliancolton (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You take care each of the comments that I suggested. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, more sources, more statistics, ref for the pressure reading-that's done. What more now? Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Find the missing pressures and fix the typos. Non-breaking spaces could be better. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one typo. And the missing pressures are going to remain missing except for maybe a couple of them.
- Those pressures are available, though. I also don't like how it says the pressures are the definitive minimum pressure; for many, I would guess the actual minimum pressure was unavailable, so the pressure listed was the lowest known pressure. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As i said, my computer will not download any files, so most of the pressure readings I can't get. Juliancolton (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand that. You don't download anything; the MWR files are PDF's. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yea, but my computer takes hours to download even PDF. I guess I have to wait so I can get the pressures. Juliancolton (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hours? Surely you can't be serious. If you use Firefox, the PDF's will even open as an HTML. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yea, but my computer takes hours to download even PDF. I guess I have to wait so I can get the pressures. Juliancolton (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand that. You don't download anything; the MWR files are PDF's. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As i said, my computer will not download any files, so most of the pressure readings I can't get. Juliancolton (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those pressures are available, though. I also don't like how it says the pressures are the definitive minimum pressure; for many, I would guess the actual minimum pressure was unavailable, so the pressure listed was the lowest known pressure. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one typo. And the missing pressures are going to remain missing except for maybe a couple of them.
- Find the missing pressures and fix the typos. Non-breaking spaces could be better. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, more sources, more statistics, ref for the pressure reading-that's done. What more now? Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You take care each of the comments that I suggested. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few other nitpicks. Minimum pressure is a fine section title. Just clarify for the pressures that are incomplete. Also, the NHC is not the source for HURDAT. Please fix. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- HURDAT is neither the author or the publisher of the best track. Please fix. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is? Juliancolton (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the site to find out. Also, three other references do not have sources. I still oppose this nomination. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The TPC? Juliancolton (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Julian, I am not going to keep on spoonfeeding you how to improve this article. You still haven't addressed all of my concerns from my first comments to the article. Please do some serious research and copyediting. If you can't do that on your own, then I suggest you withdraw this nomination. An FLC is meant for articles that pass all of the featured list criteria, which this does not. Given how much the article has changed in the last week, I would fail the article on stability issues, let alone on sourcing and comprehensiveness. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The TPC? Juliancolton (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the site to find out. Also, three other references do not have sources. I still oppose this nomination. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is? Juliancolton (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I will withdraw. And I know you don't like me, but could you try not to show it so much, and discourage me. Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, how do I withdraw? Juliancolton (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The instructions are near the top of the page - To archive a nomination --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, how do I withdraw? Juliancolton (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And who decides when a article passes or fails? Juliancolton (talk) 14:08, 21 December 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 list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.