Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [1].

1991 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

1991 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like collecting stars and rewards... no, that doesn't work.

I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make WP:100K happen! Eh... that's kinda dead.

I am nominating this for featured article because I worked on it a lot last month and it's part of a featured topic I'm working on and I really like it and I found some neat info on the season and I got some favorable responses to it and I hope you like it too! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note - Since Hurricanehink has indicated that he is going to be busy over the next few days preparing for Hurricane Irene myself and other project members will keep an eye on this FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jason, I should be good now since the storm damage wasn't bad here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source for ACE section? The table is linked to this page, which lists no sources
  • Ref 9: publisher? Also, check dash use in this and similar titles
  • Ref 25: do we know full names?
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include publishers for newspapers
  • What is WFO?
  • Ref 74: formatting
  • Ref 76: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got ref 9, 25, 74 (I believe, I changed the author to publisher), and 76. As for the newspapers, they should be consistent. That one, I just made a mistake with the cite web/news. I believe I always do author and newspaper, with the agency when possible (usually AP). I also clarified the WFO. As for the ACE... yea, it isn't really sourced by a good source. I personally hate the section and believe it violates Wiki policy by having it in there (due to lack of sourcing anywhere that proves those storms had those individual amounts), and I would be happy to remove it. However, others claim it falls under the routine calculation portion of WP:OR. If you (and anyone else) wouldn't mind not opposing over that single section, I will bring up a discussion on this to find clarity on the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I removed the ACE section and added the overall ACE to the season summary section (with a source!). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds of lousy humor... aside from that, some comments:
  • As of late I've been more critical of wikilinking practices, so I've been pushing for more judicious use of links. In the first two sentences, which should IMO be self-sufficient (we don't want users wandering away two seconds after they reach the page), you link tropical cyclone, North Atlantic tropical cyclone, and hurricane season, which all seem to overlap to an extent, and I think if I were a newcomer to the topic I'd be overwhelmed.
    • I can understand that. I left the link for hurricane season, since that is the most prudent given it is a hurricane season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it slightly disconcerting that the lead bounces from Danny and Erika and back to Bob. I guess it doesn't have to be chronologically ordered, but I'm wondering why the very first paragraph deals with storms that didn't affect anyone, but the second paragraph covers the damaging storms... I think it should be the other way around, myself.
    • Actually, that was deliberate. I thought the most notable storms should get their own paragraph. Danny and Erick were lame storms, so they're more of an afterthought after the introduction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, there were four non-developing tropical depressions, of which one, the second, struck land and dropped heavy rainfall. - first, "of which one, the second" is hard to parse, and second, where did it strike? I'd like a general region.
  • After brushing the Outer Banks of North Carolina and Long Island in New York - I don't see why those shouldn't be consistent.
    • Well, per Google, it's more common to say "Outer Banks of North Carolina", but "Long Island in New York". I didn't plan it that way, though. I just thought it sounded more natural, since Outer is describing something not quite "in" North Carolina. I didn't care either way about Long Island. Seeing as you're a New Yorker (stater), would you prefer "in" or "of' for NY? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • was most notable for providing the energy - I think this is kind of shaky wording; explicitly forcing that X "was most notable" for N usually disrupts prose flow in my experience.
  • It later transitioned into an unnamed hurricane - meteorologically, it transitioned into a regular hurricane, and it was our (the NHC's) decision not to name it... I think you should remove "unnamed" here.

Juliancolton (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:'
  • "ACE is only calculated for full advisories on tropical systems at or exceeding 34 knots (39 mph, 63 km/h) or tropical storm strength." - I though knots is against project standards.
  • A majority of the ACE section is unsourced.
  • There is still no reference for the ACE values. Someone on here once told me that without a source for the ACE values, it could be considered WP:OR.

--12george1 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - supplies all the information I'd want to know. The ACE issue doesn't bother me, since I believe we're close to reaching an agreement on it. I do have one concern with the Perfect Storm section: The origins of the unnamed hurricane also known as the Perfect Storm. The unnamed hurricane developed as the Perfect Storm nor'easter was fizzling, so "also known as" doesn't really work. Other than that, excellent work! Juliancolton (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, I removed the "the unnamed hurricane also known as", since the PS name was not applied to the unnamed hurricane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the FAC arena, and I do not have much time to work, so I will focus on prose nitpicks. If any of my comments run against the spirit of what a featured article should be, feel free to call me out on it.

  • In the Lead: Can you wikilink "tropical wave"? It is a term that isn't clear to outsiders (like me), and it would be helpful.
  • In the Lead: "developed from a tropical wave, which are the source" - which is the source?
  • In the Lead: "Erika passed through the Azores" - better phrased as "Erika passed over the Azores"? After all, it is in the sky (well, mostly). You phrased it like this later, when Hurricane Ana formed over the Bahamas.
    • Well, literally, the Bahamas and Azores refer to the land itself, but a tropical cyclone is a system that extends from the ground into the atmosphere, so technically it does go over the areas, as well as "through". I changed a few so there is some varied wording, but I kept some at "over". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regards to the comment involving the lesser storms and then the greater storms in the lead...I do find the fact that it is not chronological rather strange, granted the article is laid out in a chronological manner. However, I do find it easier to understand in the way it is currently done, and I like that that the stuff that really matters is agglomerated into one.
  • In the Storm summary section: " calling for eight tropical storms" - I don't think "calling for" is the write phrasing. This isn't quite a recipe. :P
  • In the Storm summary section: "However, a further revision" - better phrased as "a later revision"? It sounds awkward to me.
  • In the Perfect storm section: Both Andrea Gail and The Perfect Storm (the movie wikilink) should be italicized.

Probably the most significant comment I have is that I'd prefer to see jargon (like Cape Verde-type hurricane, for example) defined in the article. I like situations like the Metallicity section of the featured article on the star Tau Ceti, which actually defines metallicity and its relevance to astronomy before even delving into how it relates to Tau Ceti itself. To go into such detail really helps dumb things down for the layperson (again, an outsider like me), and helps people to fully understand the topic.

I apologize that this is not much; I will examine the article more if time permits, but I cannot give guarantees. Hope this helps. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review—I tried to address your points. As for having separate sections for meteorological terms: in some cases this is possible (e.g. explaining what a major hurricane is), but in some cases, we have very long and detailed articles already (e.g. tropical cyclogenesis) that adequately cover the main topic, IMO. That said, I'll give a technical jargon review to the article shortly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You don't mention the Perfect Storm in the naming section at all; I would add a brief mention as to why it was left unnamed instead of it being called Henri. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can do. I didn't mention Henri specifically, but I mentioned the unnamed-ness. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Earlier, I changed the hurricane season wikilink to Atlantic hurricane season, as the hurricane season wikilink is just a disambiguation page. I've been adding wikilinks for geographical locations on their first instance, which has primarily been in the lead. While wikipedia indicates we don't even need wikilinks for geographical locations, our project has usually erred on the side of caution and wikilinked locations first occurrence. Either way, the article should be consistent with its practices. I've also been refining a couple other wikilinks to go directly to the section in the article that they need to go to. Keep an eye out for this, and let me know if there are reasons NOT to do this. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for looking through that. Yea, my bad about the AHS link. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
    • The most significant storm of the season was Hurricane Bob which, at the time, was among the ten costliest United States hurricanes. — weird comma placement
    • Can we get a table in the Season summary section for the pre-season forecasts? We do that for current hurricane seasons and it seems that there is enough data for a table to be useful here.
      • Yea, I never thought about that. Good call. They do that as well in the previous season (which isn't even featured). Just one little snag I found was that I didn't have the exact dates, which shouldn't be a huge issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The origins of Ana, the first tropical storm of the season, were from a cold-core low that existed in the western Atlantic Ocean, east of Jacksonville, Florida, by June 25. — the sentence is rather choppy; can you rephrase it?
    • With an anticyclone located over Florida, the system moved in a clockwise motion, gradually developing to the surface. — explicitly say that it was clockwise with respect to the anticyclone
    • Developing organized convection, the depression intensified into Tropical Storm Bob roughly 18 hours after developing.[19] — too much development in the sentence
    • It gradually organized over the Gulf Stream,[20] and based on reports from the Hurricane Hunters, Bob attained hurricane status on August 17.[19] — link to Hurricane Hunters
    • After further intensification off the Carolinas, Bob reached peak winds of 115 mph (185 km/h) to the east of Virginia on August 19, making it a major hurricane or a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. — you are using notes in the article already (see [nb 1] in the lede); just say "major hurricane" and make a new note as to what MH means. The sentence is very convoluted right now.
    • Significantly cooler sea surface temperatures resulted in weakening, and after brushing Long Island the center of Bob struck Newport, Rhode Island with winds of 100 mph (155 km/h), making it a Category 2 hurricane. — again, too many things in one center
    • The hurricane first affected the Carolinas, spawning four confirmed and nine unconfirmed tornadoes in North Carolina.[22] — link to tornado here?
    • As it moved up the coast, it dropped rainfall in the storm's western portion.[25] — too many "it"s, and the antecedent for them is a couple of sentences away. Write "Bob" or "the hurricane" or something here.
    • The hurricane produced extensive beach erosion which destroyed coastal roads in the state.[28] — link beach erosion
    • This made made it among the ten costliest U.S. hurricanes at the time. — This = total damage? Damage in MA alone? Besides, spelling out the cause here would make the sentence sound better, IMO.
    • One of the few vigorous tropical waves of the season spawned the fourth tropical depression of the season." — "of the season" said twice within the same sentence
    • Despite a well-organized appearance,[7] the depression was not expected to intensify due to marginal water temperatures.[32] — while correct, it assumes that the reader knows that warm SSTs are required for tropical cyclogenesis. I'd rephrase the sentence to remove the need for that assumption.
    • With a ridge to the north, the depression maintained a general westward track.[34] — link to ridge (meteorology)
    • The origins of Claudette were non-tropical, originating from an eastward moving area of convection over the western Atlantic in early September. — do you need a hyphen after eastward?
    • It underwent rapid intensification, and early on September 7 attained winds of 115 mph (185 km/h), based on a reconnaissance flight. — weird comma use after the MSW measurement. I'd rephrase the sentence to avoid that comma completely.
    • Around that time, a hurricane watch, and later warning, was issued for the island of Bermuda.[45] — since having the "and later warning" part can make people wonder at first glance whether a plural is needed in this sentence, I'd say that a watch was issued, then it was later upgraded to a warning. Link to tropical cyclone watches and warnings here as well.
    • Three days later it exited the coast at Dakar,[7] — something sounds wrong here. How do you exit a coast? I'd use a different phrase here.
    • After remaining a tropical depression for about 36 hours, the system became better organized and developed well-defined banding features. — so much jargon here… rephrase or use links liberally
    • The system had most of the convection along the southern portion of the wave axis, maintaining a very large low-level circulation. — again, jargon
      • Is that any better? "The system had most of the thunderstorms along the southern portion of the wave as it maintained a very large low-level circulation." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was initial uncertainty whether Erika or nearby Claudette would becoming the dominant system through their interaction.[53] — grammar ("becoming")
    • It accelerated east-northeastward toward the Azores along the northern periphery of a ridge, briefly interacting with Claudette.[51] — interacted how?
    • Nearby Santa Maria Island reported tropical storm force winds with gusts to 67 mph (107 km/h), prompting the closure of the airfield for several hours.[51] — do we know what the airfield is called?
      • Probably the airport on the island, but I couldn't get confirmation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Initially it was disorganized,[57] with its strongest winds located primarily east of the center.[58] — unclear antecedent, since the reader might assume that Fabian was a TS at the time, or might think you're talking about the depression, cold front, or the tropical wave
    • Moving westward, it developed a weak circulation on October 23, and organized enough to prompt Dvorak classifications on the system on October 24.[64] — jargon; what does "prompt Dvorak classifications" mean? I thought SAB / TAFB / whatever it was at the time started running Dvorak analyses when the systems reached Invest status. If you mean that, why don't you just say that the area of disturbed weather began being monitored using Dvorak-based satellite analysis?
      • Actually, I moved it around, since the Dvorak technique was what prompted the advisories. Lemme know if that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By October 25, the circulation had become dissociated from the convection,[66] — considering that the next sentence starts with a capital letter, either something is missing or you meant to use a period there.
    • By two days later it became a surface low, and on October 26 it developed into a subtropical storm. — it had become?
    • It received the designation due to the initial lack of deep convection over the center, — I would say "the system was catalogued as subtropical" instead of "received the designation"
      • I think catalogued is a bit weird, but I changed it to- "The system was labeled as such due to the initial lack of deep convection over the center" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just didn't want to use classified since you use it later in that paragraph. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • including then-President of the United States George H.W. Bush's vacation home.[70] — to avoid the weird hyphen structure, I would say, "including the vacation home of George H.W. Bush, the president of the United States at the time."
    • Offshore New York, a Coast Guard helicopter lost fuel and crashed, and although four member of its crew were rescued, one was killed.[79][81][82] — I don't like "offshore New York", but more importantly, four members of the crew were rescued
    • High waves swept swept a person to their death in each Rhode Island and Puerto Rico, and another person was blown off a bridge.[76] — the "each Rhode Island and Puerto Rico thing sounds weird", and in what state was the person blown off the bridge?
    • The World Meteorological Organization retired one name in the spring of 1992: Bob.[85] — do you need the colon there?
    • >A hurricane is a tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph (119 km/h).[1] — remove the ">"
  • Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for the review! I believe I addressed everything (hopefully). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yep, you did. Good job. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • offshore the southeast United States — off the southeast United States?
  • existed without significantly affecting land — did not significantly affect land?
  • dropped heavy rainfall. — rained heavily?
    • Im not happy with either sentence, but i cant quite figure out how to rework it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it to "with significant accompanying rains." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • $200 million in damage and causing coastal damage from Puerto Rico to Florida and northward through Canada. — Is that USD figure just for the US, or does it include Canada?
  • released his annual forecast for the season, which he began doing in 1984. — I know what you mean, but it looks as if it took him seven years to do the forecast
    • Jason Rees changed the latter clause to " which he had issued since 1984". I believe that is much clearer that it is referring to his annual forecasts beginning in 1984. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eight tropical storms was the lowest in four years — not grammatical, lowest number perhaps?
  • dropped rainfall (Bob) — rained?
    • I changed the entire sentence in question to "As the storm moved up the coast, it produced rains in its western portion." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Hunters — no link or explanation, I've no idea what these are. Also, should there be an apostrophe?

Support - Bodnotbod's review with reference to FA criteria: SUPPORT *Judgement: Weak oppose due to reasons given below, with view to every intention of supporting at some later date.

  • Judgement: Support (issues listed below resolved to my satisfaction).
    • Quote: "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his annual forecast for the season, which he had issued since 1984." An amusing interpretation of this sentence is that he issues the same report every year like some very lazy expert ;O) Can it be reworded? Perhaps "...forecast for the season, he had been issuing forecasts since 1984."
      • I've had some trouble with that sentence. Basically, I'm trying to avoid saying "forecast" twice in the same sentence, since that is highly redundant. I changed it to:
        "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his forecast for the year's activity, a yearly practice that he began doing in 1984."
      • Is that any better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would "a yearly practice that he began in 1984" be better? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I hope. That sentence has been changed like five times since I started this process :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote: "Virginia recorded more than 5 in (130 mm)." If this is how such statements are always worded, that's fine. But I had to read it twice, because I read the abbrev. for inches as the word "in", leaving me momentarily thinking "five what?".
      • Actually, I'm sorry, I should have written out that one. For such units, the first one should be written out, but yea, the rest of the article should be "X in (Y mm)". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote: "no significant developed occurred until it became Tropical Depression Two". Presumably "development" should replace "developed" here?
    • Quote: "One person died in both North and South Carolina". Again, this could be misinterpreted as if it's one guy who happened to be standing astride the border, it feels a little clumsy. Maybe "There were two fatalities; one in North Carolina, one in South Carolina."
      • As with earlier, I wanted to avoid saying "Carolina" twice. I switched it to "One person each died in North and South Carolina." - is that better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote: "In addition, there were 15 fatalities in the country." Probably doesn't need "in the country". We can appreciate that the fatalities are where the hurricane is, so I think "In addition, there were 15 fatalities." is sufficient.
      • Actually, I disagree since not having that would imply overall. The subsequent sentence deals with the Canadian deaths, so I feel the distinction is needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote: " In portions of New England, damage was worse than what occurred from Hurricane Bob two months prior." I think "than had occurred" would be better than "what occurred".
    • Comment: In my browser the article causes a horizontal scroll-bar to appear. I think one of the templates at the bottom of the article is causing it. It's not a deal breaker but it would be good if it can be fixed. When I do actually scroll horizontally it doesn't appear that anything extra is revealed to me, so I can't see that scrolling should be necessary.
    • Criteria 1 (a) which reads: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"
  • Professional but dull at times. I struggled to remain engaged with the article. I'm only human so I naturally found the storms that caused damage to be more interesting than the weather events that drifted about a bit but caused no human drama. So I was engaged when learning that GWB's house had suffered damage, but for those tropical storms that were uneventful I did find it hard to keep my attention on what I was reading. However, does this mean I'm calling for change? I'm not sure I am. The cost of just telling us the exciting bits would be that the article would be less complete and we are aiming for comprehensive coverage of the topic. So I guess I accept that were I more of a 'hurricane person' then I would want to know about the less eventful storms too.
  • Honestly, and I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a cop-out, but that's because the storms were that boring. Only two of them (Bob and the Perfect Storm) were remotely interesting in terms of human impact. Fabian was a joke, and if Danny and Erika had never formed, no one would have ever known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Criteria 1 (b) which reads "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • Good, I trust. I'm not qualified to say, so I have to place my trust in the editors(s). I'm happy to do that on this occasion.
    • Criteria 1 (c) which reads "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;"
  • Great. No complaints here.
    • Criteria 1 (d) which reads "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;"
  • No issues. Not the sort of article that would suffer from issues on this score, perhaps.
    • Criteria 1 (e) which reads "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
  • Excellent. No sign of issues here, having checked the history of the article over the last year.
    • Criteria 2(a) which reads "a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;"
  • Excellent
    • Criteria 2(b) which reads "appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;"
  • Excellent: takes a chronological approach which makes perfect sense. Easy to find individual storms/hurricanes if one wishes.
    • 2(c) consistent citations
  • Defer to others - I believe other reviewers have looked the citations over, so I'll not address those.
    • Criteria 3 which reads "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."
  • Pass - Images seem to be from some institute, and I assume they are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.
    • Criteria 4 which reads "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
  • Pass - Article is concise and has links to other main articles for the more eventful storms.
    • Closing comment: Definitely a good article. Still feel it's held back by a) rather uninspiring descriptions of some non-events and b) lack of inspiration not helped by some hurricane jargon. Let's look at the Claudette section as an example. It contains the following quotes: "area of convection", "system became organized", "low wind shear and a large anticyclone allowing for the development of outflow", "weakening trend", "tropical depression status", "became extratropical". These are all rather opaque to me. However, as previously said, I'm not sure if it would be right to try and change things for the sake of the general reader as it risks making the article less useful for those with hurricane knowledge. It's a dilemma.
      • Yea, that's usually a dilemma, and we try to make it useful for non-hurricane readers. Claudette was one of the sections I didn't write from scratch when I did the rest of the article, so I did a bit of a rewrite. I'm not sure if that's better now, but I changed some of the wording and terminology. However, for some of the terms, they are explained and/or linked previously in the article on their first instance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Signing off: --bodnotbod (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (PS, HurricaneHink, maybe now you can see why it takes me more than 10 minutes to do a review ;O)[reply]
      • Thanks a lot for the review! And yea, after I did an actual review when I said that, I quickly realized it takes longer than 10 minutes :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I have not reviewed the prose, but the references need some work. Several are missing key points such as works or publishers; #s 69, 72 and 73 are examples.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All three references you mention are newspaper references, and {{cite news}} indicates that in most cases, newspaper citations do not require the |reference= parameter. In particular, the USA Today reference is to a major publication, so a publisher should not be included in that case, per the guidance given in the template's documentation. The |work= parameter is also inapplicable for all three citations you note. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    USA Today has a publisher, Gannett Company. The others do as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just saying that Template:Cite news#Optional parameters says to not add it… Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First off, this is not how traditional references are done whether or not the page says that. Secondly, the claim not to provide publisher for individual name publishers, example Rap-Up, its saying its not necessary to provide Devine Lazarine. I understand that, but for regular large scale companies I do not see that made clear. No reason to not add Time Warner for Entertainment Weekly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the two under the Grace section so they would be consistent with the other citations. However, the USAToday one is more of a website than a news article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    But what about publishers? I don't understand why you don't want to add those vital parameters. It is a publishing company. And yes, I believe it should be Cite news.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I just don't think it's that needed to add them. The important information is who produced the material, who is USAToday in this case. The publisher of USAToday isn't that relevant, IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you don't want good refs. 2-5 need cite news templates.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Hink et al, and find this oppose to be unfounded. Never have I heard of adding a publisher on top of a newspaper (who cares who the publisher of USAToday is?), and just find it to be adding things for the sake of it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well. I still find it to be the proper way of formatting references, but as you are in agreement, I have struck out my Oppose.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:45, 2 September 2011 (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_article_candidates/1991_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1086103771"