Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Atlantic hurricane season

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 04:36, 22 January 2008.

[edit] 1988 Atlantic hurricane season

Check external links
Dead links have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
all the external links work, it was the first thing i did. I couldnt work out how to mark them as working. Seddon69 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Its cookie issue. I haven't written code for this case, its going to be a while since I'm re-engineering the file formats. —Dispenser (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
ah, thanks for letting us know, Dispenser. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Edited mostly by User:Good kitty, I'm nominating this article for featured article because i believe it meets all featured article criteria. It is well sourced with over 60 sources, is a stable article, has articles for all storms in the season including track maps for all named storms and satellite imagery for all storms. Seddon69 (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The article needs non-breaking units. Some more prose for the ACE section might be good (there's some blank space). Given that there's a link to the NHC preliminary reports on the bottom, I don't think you need a link to each one in each section. Also, the rolling lists should perhaps be avoided, as I got a comment on it. Overall, it looks good, so I'll give it a conditional support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, you need metric units. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
One thing I'd like to see added would be the inclusion of the NHC forecast verification, which, as shown here, were the lowest back to 1970 and were lower than the subsequent 7 years. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Should that be put in with the season summary? Seddon69 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
If you make a season summary, that'd be a good place for it, yea. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Support now. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
And more info on TD15. Other than that, almost support just a couple more things. Juliancolton (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO Tropical Depression 15 doesnt need it because:
a) It was only a tropical depression so nothing much really happened anyway.
b) It was only active for a day so it didnt have much time to do anything.
c) It was in the middle of the ocean, didnt make landfall and as far as i can find out it didnt affect any ships Seddon69 (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. The changes to the the article are a big improvement, and I think it meets the FA criteria now. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

*Comments. Overall, the writing appears to be very good. I have some concerns with the layout, however.

    • Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the article. There is some information in the lead that is not in the body of the article. For example, the dates of the hurricane season and the fact that the first storm developed before that should be included in the article body.
    • All of the images are currently right-aligned. Could some of them be moved to the left to vary things up a bit?
    • Why are there external links in each section? These should either be relegated to an external links area at the bottom of the article or (preferably) be left on the main article for each hurricane and not be included in this article.
    • The storm names section needs work. Is it really necessary to duplicate the list of names that were used? Instead, could the section list only the unused names? Also, the retirement subsection is too small to be a section of its own. It should be added into the Names section.
    • The ACE section shuould be fleshed out more. There is information in the ACE article that talks about this season being above normal, and that is not mentioned in the article. Also, the source needs to be fixed. You should not be linking to a wikipedia talk page.

Karanacs (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to have been acceptable in previous hurricane season FAC's so would a similar season summary suffice?
    • The images that are in the infoboxes are pretty much the same in all previous FAC's that have been hurricane articles due to it being part of the template and the only major exception being the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which is pretty much a season of its own class, but this season does not really warrant that in my opinion. If its absolutely necessary then i suppose images used in some of the main articles could be used with the respective storms or possibly one in the season summary section proposed above.
    • With the external links, i agree, they can all be removed from the storm sections. A link to the NHC archives will be put at the bottom in place of these links.
    • With regards to the ACE section, the source for the data is from the preliminary reports (now called tropical cyclone reports) so i shall create a link to there as done in other season FAC's. I will also add any extra information i can find. Including the statement about it being above average.
    • The names are there as a complete list as this is how they are found in all publications of this list and there are people interested in the names for a season and its better having the list as a whole rather than people having to try and piece it together. Seddon69 (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a season summary as the first section. You could then incorporate the Storm names section into that (with the full list of names, as they wouldn't have been mentioned already). That would take care of several of my concerns all at once! Karanacs (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of removing the storm names section. We have that format for every tropical cyclone season article, and I don't like the idea of changing this one. --Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's nearly there, but needs cleaning up before promotion.

  • Opening sentence: "The 1988 Atlantic hurricane season was a moderately active season that proved both costly and deadly, with fifteen tropical cyclones directly affecting land." Remove the intensifier "both" and, ironically, it's stronger. "With" is a poor connector: try ", in which 15 tropical ...". Better?
  • My US dictionary says although is better in formal contexts.
  • You know that you don't have to autoformat now? It would look cleaner if you just used US date formats (nice and uncluttered normal text). Then we can be sure that they're all consistent for the 99% of readers who don't have autoformatting. In fact, MOSNUM explicitly mentions not using autoforamatting for ranges (you have "August 8 — August 10", and this is better as "August 8–10". There are others, too, and the en dash must be spaced if the dysfunctional autoformatting is retained.
  • MOS says no hyphen after "-ly".
  • Hyphen can't be an interrupter: see MOS on dashes.
  • "35 mph (55 km/h), Pressure unknown"—why P? Tony (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Numerals are preferred by MOS if > nine, unless an "exception". I see "300", but "nineteen" etc, and "destroyed 6 bridges", ouch. Please be consistent.

These are just samples; please engage someone else to sift through it. Tony (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • lead has been corrected.
  • although used instead of though.
  • Current format adjusted in template to include space. and the capital "P" is used in all hurricane articles including those gone through FAC and is also part of the template.
  • hypehn after "-ly" removed.
  • Hyphen used as interrupter removed
  • Numericals edited so that >9 in numerical form <9 in written form
Seddon69 (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Adding "done" checkmarks to someone else's commentary isn't helpful; this practice requires me to take the time to step back through the diffs and see if the reviewer marked these items done, or if the nominator thinks they're done. Done is "done" when the reviewer strikes or indicates satisfaction. Please don't edit reviewer's comments; replies can be threaded and indented after another editor's remarks, leaving the reviewer's commentary intact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, one hyphen after "-ly" was removed; I see another. Has it been properly audited throughout, as I suggested? "less-favorable conditions"—no hyphen. "until it began organizing near 55° W on 19 August." Is "organising" a technical term? If not, it's vague. "thirty" but "160"—where's the boundary between naming and numerals? See MOS. "There were no reports of damage or casualties caused by the storm." In the context, get rid of the last four words, yes? Not happy yet. Tony (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to get the League of Copyeditors to copy edit this article. hopefully all grammatical errors will be dealt with then. Seddon69 (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • As an additional note, organising is being used as a technical term. Seddon69 (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

CommentI believe that this article is now of a standard that it should become FA. The following points that have been brought up but which havn't been dealt with are as follows.

  • More Information on TD15. - The reason this has not been changed is that in 1988 tropical depressions were not covered in great detail in any reports and there is no database for best track information about tropical depressions before 1989.
  • Names section - I believe that the list should remain there for several reasons. Firstly it has never been a problem in previous FAC's that are season articles. Secondly, i feel that the list should remain as a whole as this is how it found in various sources.
  • Left align pictures The images are part of the infobox template, this is something which is standard with season articles including nearly all which have passed FAC. One edit included an image in the season summary but i felt that it did not lie in the text well.

The following things have been done to this article:

  • Forecast verification included in the season summary.
  • Article lead section now complies with WP:LEAD as the additional information has been included in the season summary.
  • External links in each section have been removed.
  • ACE section has been expanded and sourced.
  • The article has been audited by myself more throughly than previous attempt. It is awaiting copyeditting from the LoC but i feel that it might not be necessary any longer.
  • An additional timeline has also been added to the article.

If there are still minor problems i would be happy to deal with them. I feel this article meets the requirements of FAC and that there is little that needs to be done now for this to pass other than for people to comfirm my feelings that this article is ready. Seddon69 (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Two items stand out at me.

  • The first paragraph in the Tropical Storm Kieth section has no inline references - is it referenced by items in the following paragraph?
  • The other is the source for the ACE rating data is a simple direct external link, this should be changed to a footnote to be consistent with the rest of the article.

Once these are addressed - I Support'  — master sonT - C 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

These 2 issues have been dealt with. Seddon69 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Looks good - Support  — master sonT - C 00:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I copy-edited the lead and wasn't thrilled with the writing. And ... "Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued before each hurricane season by noted hurricane experts like Dr. William M. Gray, and his associates at Colorado State University." Um ... unsure why Gray is foregrounded like this; I'm sure that other h experts might be a little miffed by the favouritism. Am I on the wrong track? PS no comma after "Gray". There are quite a few unnecessary commas throughout. Slight overuse of semicolons. Tony (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • With regards to mentioning Gray, he was the scientist who founded pre-season tropical cyclone predictions, and at this time was the only person at this time to author such predictions. He is also the professor heading the department at CSU and has been since the 70's and for these reasons why he is specifically named in this article. However i can try and write a more friendlier version if you require. With regards to the changes you made to the currency in the lead, this will result in confusion as this could be in reference to various currencies, all of which use the dollar in this area but all with different values. The biggest 2 being mexico and the usa, both of which use the $ sign. This is the reasoning for the use of the USD in the lead. I feel its wrong to think that people will assume you are referring to USD. Seddon69 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator This article has now received a second copyedit by an LoC member to remove the aforementioned comma's. I think this article is now at a terrific standard and anything more to be done to the article is so small that the editor who sees the error should be able to do it him/herself without too much time being devoted to it. Seddon69 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. A small comment (for the moment, I'm reading and re-reading the article): I see different forms for numbers throughout the article (there's "15" in the lead, and "fourteen" spelled out later for example). This needs to be consistent. CloudNine (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Response I was aware of that but i left it unchanged for the reasoning that throughout the article i have applied the following rule:
  • 0-9 are all in written form
  • numbers greater than 10 are written numerically except in the following cases: In storm names as the written form is the actual name of the storm, in the season summary section because you have six to fourteen in this section and so i wanted to maintain continuity as much as possible. I felt it was better to use the written form of fourteen as it resulted in fewer anomalies than changing all the 0-9's in this section to digit form. Seddon69 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Improved. Tony (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Support All of the problems have been adressed, and it is very good. Juliancolton (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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.