Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Michael (2000)/archive2

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 not promoted by Karanacs 01:36, 8 June 2011 [1].

Hurricane Michael (2000)[edit]

Hurricane Michael (2000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC), Juliancolton[reply]

After fixing nearly all of the issues brought up at the previous FAC, I strongly believe that this article now meets the FA criteria. However, that it just my opinion. I say that because the article is more thorough and comprehensive than it was during its last FAC. After slightly more than a year, I am once again ready for the major constructive criticism phase, also known as the FAC. As a final note before the comments begin, this is a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • Why link Environment Canada the second time in references but not the first
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done--12george1 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, spotchecks for close paraphrasing and accurate representation of sources are needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding myself as a co-nom, since I believe I wrote most of the initial content. Juliancolton (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images - all but one are from the US Gov't = PD. The last, File:Michael 2000 track.png, is from a Wikipedian, and gives us the only possible problem. We might need a source for the cyclone track in that image, but I haven't done image reviews in awhile, so I'm not up to current FAC standards on this point. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The track image was generated using a program designed specifically to overlay data from the NHC (which is linked to in the Commons file) onto a NASA image, which is also noted in the file info. Aside from simply feeding the data in, it's all PD-gov. Thanks for the image review! Juliancolton (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I was originally going to do the spotchecks requested by Sandy above, but looking at the prose I have serious concerns about its quality. It will likely need extensive copy-editing for clarity, grammar and flow. Here are some specific examples of problematic phrases:

  • "Hurricane Michael was one of only a handful of tropical cyclones to strike Newfoundland in the month of October" - I appreciate it's in the title, but you really should include a year here
Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made landfall in Newfoundland on October 20. Michael made landfall on Newfoundland" - repetitive, odd change from "in" to "on". Next sentence repeats a similar construction, and to my non-specialist eyes seems contradictory - was it a cyclone or a hurricane on landfall?
Better?--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On later that day", "post-analysis later discovered actually a tropical storm" - grammar
Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is overall very difficult to follow as a non-specialist reader
I would like to see some examples--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of repeated words. From the second paragraph of Meteorological history, we see "rapidly...rapidly", "remained...remained", "slightly...slightly", etc
Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such formed a "hybrid" system" - awkward phrasing.
Done--12george1 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's prose needs significant editing before it is at FA standards. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • This link might be useful, since it details the plane's flight and the ET.
    • I have a bit of issue with the opening sentence. "handful" is a pretty lousy word for an FA, particularly in the opening sentence. I also see it isn't sourced in the article. Isn't there something more concrete you can put in?
      • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my comment below about the sourciness. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I removed that statement altogether since apparently Michael did not make landfall.--12george1 (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the lede should be tweaked slightly to indicate just how far north it was when it peaked as C2. The current wording makes it seem like it happened right away, not at 44º N
    • There's also the issue that the lede later contradicts the first sentence. If it was an extratropical storm at landfall, then the opening sentence is false
      • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not fixed, since the MH of the article does indicate the uncertainty whether it was tropical or not at landfall. You've made the lede internally consistent, but you completely ignore the MH. Also, I did some further research, and you're also ignoring what's clearly stated in the TCR. "eventually crossed Newfoundland as a strong extratropical low pressure system", and "During landfall along the south coast of Newfoundland as an extratropical system". I don't know why you're insisting it was tropical at landfall. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lede doesn't go into any physical damage, so that should probably be mentioned (X houses were damaged, Y people left without power)
      • There is no statistics on the number of houses damaged or people left without power, etc.; I decided to instead include some other damage details, like minor structure damage.--12george1 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which resulted in development into a stationary front" - that could be worded better
    • "as a subtropical depression. As a subtropical depression" - really?
      • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...no, it still has the redundancy of saying the exact same phrase twice in a row. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know what happened with this, I guess I click the back button and thought I saved it instead.--12george1 (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Do you realize it still says "as a subtropical depression. As a subtropical depression"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Michael maintained minimal hurricane status until 1200 UTC on October 18. " - what happened then?
    • More later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit I have major problems with. The issue in question was brought up by the WPTC here, in which all but one person agreed that HURDAT (the source you cite) should not be used to cite a record that a user makes up (or personally researches) for the sake of an article. There should be someone reliable actually saying it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed that statement since not only was it requiring HURDAT to cite it, it also implied that Michael made landfall while tropical, which is apparently false.--12george1 (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great, that was my biggest qualm with the article. At first I was confused too whether it was tropical or not, but that was before I actually looked at the TCR. I'm content enough to remove my opposition. Here are two more things.
  • "However, just prior to landfall, waves on the coast of Newfoundland reached heights of 7–8 m (23–26 ft)." - I think you are taking that out of context. The lack of surge due to low tide makes sense. Looking at the source and the lack of wave damage, it doesn't appear those wave heights were along the coast, unlike a storm like Gert 99, which had wave damage.
  • There isn't consistency between the HPC map and the EC report, with regards to the peak Nova Scotia rainfall. Given we have the person who made the HPC map, could you find out the reason for the discrepancy?
    • Here is Thegreatdr's response: "I don't know, since CHC (Canadian Hurricane Center) was the source of the info."--12george1 (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 6 June 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/Hurricane_Michael_(2000)/archive2&oldid=1078801267"