Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Hurricane Daniel (2006)

Hurricane Daniel (2006)[edit]

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new nomination underneath. To do this, see the instructions at {{TFAR nom/doc}}.

The result was: not scheduled by Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Daniel was the second strongest hurricane of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season. The fourth named storm of the season, Daniel originated on July 16 from a tropical wave off the coast of Mexico. It tracked westward, intensifying steadily to reach peak winds of 150 mph (240 km/h) on July 22. At the time, the characteristics of the cyclone resembled those of an annular hurricane. Daniel gradually weakened as it entered an area of cooler water temperatures and increased wind shear, and after crossing into the Central Pacific Ocean, it quickly degenerated into a remnant low pressure area on July 26. Initial predictions suggested that the cyclone would pass through the Hawaiian Islands as a tropical storm; however, Daniel's remnants dissipated southeast of Hawaii. The storm brought light to moderate precipitation to the islands of Hawaii and Maui, causing minor flooding, although no major damage or fatalities were reported. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): 2003 Sri Lanka cyclone (June 14, 2016)
Main editors: Juliancolton
Promoted: February 28, 2009
Reasons for nomination: 10th anniversary of formation
Support as nominator. SST flyer 04:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please add this to the summary table above. Also: please check the link in ref 2 which is giving me repeated timeouts. Also check ref 24 where the link appears to go to an unrelated page. Brianboulton (talk)
Oppose (noting that Hurricanehink did most of the work here) - as long as we have so many hurricane FAs that haven't been on the main page, including some on infamous, destructive storms like Hurricane Hattie, Hurricane Iris, and Typhoon Maemi, I really don't think there's a pressing need to run a storm like Daniel. It's a fine article, and I'm sure it still meets the criteria after 7 years, but it's a short entry on a relatively insignificant storm. We've all heard the recurring complaint that there are too many "boring" weather articles on the main page, and I'm not sure this is the best way to deal with that particular concern. With 2003 Sri Lanka cyclone on June 14, we'll have had six tropical cyclone articles on the main page since March 1. Given how well-represented meteorology is on the main page, we can afford to be a little bit choosy. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the question of "too many" weather articles as TFA, about 4 percent of our present stock of FAs yet to appear on the main page are in the meteorology division, which suggests that the right proportion for this category is about 15 TFAs a year. This nom, if it runs, would be the ninth in the first seven months of 2016, which is hardly disproportionate. There may be good reasons for not running this, e.g. comparative insignificance, but over-representation isn't really one of them. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you'll never hear me object to more meteorology TFAs! I'd simply suggest that since hurricane FAs are (rightfully) scheduled quite often, and we have years' worth of virgin articles to choose from, we're in a good position to keep picking the low-hanging fruit - that is, more substantial articles with broader reader appeal. There are those of us who are captivated by strong hurricanes in the middle of the ocean, but we're in the tiny minority. Objectively, Daniel was a boring storm, and I feel its appearance on the main page is unlikely to leave an enormously positive impression on anyone. I wouldn't feel guilty about missing out on the date relevance; just by the chronological nature of weather events, there are always more anniversaries on the horizon. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I trust Julian's intuition on this. It might be time for a discussion at WT:TROP on which kinds of articles they'd like to see at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed... there aren't many hurricane FAs that I'm not anxious to see showcased, but they do exist, and we need to figure out what to do with them. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if amongst yourselves you can nominate a hurricane for July, I'll gladly shelve this one. Preferfably not this exact date, though, because I believe it is wanted for a musical centenary (that's not a FA yet). Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw per Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Requiem (Reger). Thanks to all parties involved. SST flyer 05:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]