Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989/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 02:39, 24 July 2007.

Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989[edit]

previous FAC

Last FAC closed early, renominating on Raul's advice. -RunningOnBrains 10:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment is there any way to box up the multi-colored tornado counting thing rather than leave it floating mid-lead and pushing the contents box down and thus creating a big gap below the opening image? Just a thought... SGGH speak! 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. It looked fine in my browser, but I guess if you increase the text size it becomes problematic. -RunningOnBrains 00:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This article is well-written and well-referenced. What is more is that it provides a lot of details on the subject. However, I have noticed a few mistakes in it, which can be easily fixed.
    • Perhaps the lead can be lengthened by a bit.
    • "Amazingly, while dozens of homes and other structures were levelled, no one was killed by tornadoes that day." (section 3) Does not Amazingly suggest some POV?
    • "...and 1 death and 11 injuries were caused by..." (section 3) 1 should be written out.
    • "In just 5 hours, the storms..." (section 3) 5 should be written out.
    • "The airport in Oxford, CT recorded..." (section 3) CT should be written out to Connecticut and a comma should be put after it.
    • Typical tornadoes in this area are short-lived, and not particularly damaging." (section 3) No comma required.
    • "...only 6 violent tornadoes have occurred..." (section 3) 6 should be written out.

I am sure in that these can be easily fixed. Please count my support only after these are fixed. Thank you. Universe=atomTalk•Contributions 11:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—1a. Listy table, then stubby sections. That's all it comprises. It's just a disjointed, not particularly well-written story—this happened then that happened then this happened ... No wider picture or analysis. Most unsatisfactory, as is the director's encouragement to resubmit so soon. "Ram 'em through, as many times as it takes."
      • Comment The FAC was re-submitted because it was closed out of turn, there was no actionable criticism left, and only reviewed by one editor. If this failed a full debate/critique, I of course wouldn't renominate until all criticisms were addressed. If reviewers feel the prose is insufficient/stubby, I can expand it greatly from newspaper articles, but it may take a few days.-RunningOnBrains 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Big ugly list/table. Can't it be at the bottom, so as not to obstruct the flow of the article at the top? Ugly, lewd colour scheme; not only that, the blue seems illogical. Fourth column forces the text into tiny chunks verticalised. Some units have no metric equivalent (same for the main text).
    • "This final section of the path is plotted as a skipping tornado, but may have been three or more tornadoes." But?
      • Fixed, I believe.
    • "may have been three separate tornadoes"—Two lines later; is this referring to the same phenomenon?
    • "The National Guard was called in to aid in cleanup and keep order, as some looting was reported in the devastated area." So the National Guard was called in to aid in cleanup because looting was reported? That's what it says. Tony 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it was called in to aid in cleanup in addition to keeping the looting at bay. I'm not sure if your criticism here is of awkward wording or unclear phrasing. -RunningOnBrains 11:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just started looking through the article. We could use a bit more background on the storm; the main article starts with when the damage began - where did the storm begin? If tornadoes are rare in that area, what were the circumstances that created them then? Matt Deres 16:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actual meteorological data on this event is hard to come by. I contacted National Weather Service offices in several states, and only got a response from one, who said in so many words that all meteorological data about that day was lost. The only real records that exist from the pre-digital age are traces of radar returns, and they did not have those on file. I have been unable to find any scientific studies on the event either. -RunningOnBrains 02:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I have not abandoned this article, I am currently doing newspaper research, and should hopefully be able to significantly expand this article by some time next week. -RunningOnBrains 22:06, 5 July 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Northeastern_United_States_tornado_outbreak_of_1989/archive2&oldid=1146035364"