Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Irene (2005)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept 09:53, 1 February 2008.
Hurricane Irene (2005)[edit]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones and User:Hurricanehink notified.
I believe this article is well under-refferenced to be FA. There are a lot of statements that should be referenced for the article to be a true FA. Furthermore, I do not think that because the article is so short, it is ok to have only 6 distinct references (Featured article with only 6 sources?). Nergaal (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Not listed at FAR until 1 February, found on talk page. Please do notifications per WP:FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually completed nomination on Feb 1, 2008.Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Despite its brevity, the article is comprehensive, and thus it is ok to have 7 distinct references (I added one). The the storm was very non-notable, but as notability is not a criterion for becoming featured, it is not a problem. Large portions of the article are sourced by the tropical cyclone report, which is the official report from the National Hurricane Center. I severely doubt there would be many more useful sources, FWIW. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You were quick in removing the tag I placed on the article. You are rushing before others express their opinions? Ok, I placed 8 tags instead in the text that definately require referencing for a fetured article. Please do not remve those tags, at least before discussing them. Also, there are two places in the infobox that should also have references, - otherwise it is possible that somebody could have just made them up. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You added 8 mostly unneeded tags. I fixed a few minor statements (based on when the article was originally made), but all of the statements were sourced before you visited the article. That is why I removed the original tag so quickly. The lede does not need references, as it is a summary of the article and the information is posted elsewhere in the article. The same goes with the Infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added back some more tags where numbers are unreferrenced, or where facts are stated such as in " increased the risk of rip currents along..."Nergaal (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I double checked all of the references, and seeing that the info was in the sources, I removed them again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added back some more tags where numbers are unreferrenced, or where facts are stated such as in " increased the risk of rip currents along..."Nergaal (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You added 8 mostly unneeded tags. I fixed a few minor statements (based on when the article was originally made), but all of the statements were sourced before you visited the article. That is why I removed the original tag so quickly. The lede does not need references, as it is a summary of the article and the information is posted elsewhere in the article. The same goes with the Infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You were quick in removing the tag I placed on the article. You are rushing before others express their opinions? Ok, I placed 8 tags instead in the text that definately require referencing for a fetured article. Please do not remve those tags, at least before discussing them. Also, there are two places in the infobox that should also have references, - otherwise it is possible that somebody could have just made them up. Nergaal (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem. If everything is referenced, how can there be not enough references? Of course it is a legitimate question whether there's more information that should be included in the article, as it is obviously rather short. But aside from more statistics I don't really see what else could be included. — jdorje (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see any problems here -- it's short, but there's no FA rule about length. Not only does it appear to be thoroughly cited, but Hurricanehink has gone through and (re-)verified the citations to be sure that all the questioned information really is covered in the sources. As far as I can see this article is in compliance with the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Nergaal, this was on the article talk page for a week without being transcluded to WP:FAR, so dates will need to be adjusted. Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR and complete the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to close I agree with Mike: I'm happy with Hink's re-verification of the material, and the article does seem to meet the criteria. DrKiernan (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having had Hink go back over it, we have no reason to doubt its factual accuracy. Closing. Marskell (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2008 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.