Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone

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

The article was promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.

[edit] 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone

As writer of this article, I believe (and hope) it adheres to the featured article criteria. Two things I should mention before you assess it. First, I am aware that it might not follow the proper naming conventions (cyclone shouldn't be capitalized in the article), but the tropical cyclone Wikiproject is currently discussing our naming conventions, so if you object because of the title, could you wait until we finish discussing, or could you possibly give your imput? Secondly, as a notice, the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a standard that references are excluded from the lede, and in the body of the article they are used at the end of every block- that is, block A is three sentences long, and ends with ref A. Any comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Support. This looks smaller than even Irene! But evs. icelandic hurricane #12 _(talk) 22:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, this is about 3 kb longer. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Before I support this article I would like to see it reviewed by some Sri Lankan editors. I have left a message on Lahiru k's talk page asking him to address the following:

• Did the cyclone have a native name in Sinhala or Tamil?
• Is there a corresponding article in either the Sinhala or Tamil Wikipedias?
• Are there any POV issues due to a lack of local sources?
• Are there any obvious factual errors?

Kaldari 18:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Some of the language is confusing, particularly...

• "Though the cyclone struck areas under control by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, there are no damage reports exist for those regions." - Are there no damage reports because the storm's effect was weaker in these areas? Is the lack of damage reports linked to a lack of cooperation from the Tigers?
• "By about a month after the cyclone, the Red Cross distributed 10 sheets of roof to 1,720 families..." - I believe "roofing sheets" (per the text of the cited source) or "roofing material" may make more sense here.

Also, I'd like to see an image of the aftermath of the storm to tell the human side of the story. Having just satellite imagery makes it a little too impersonal. Caknuck 19:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I got those two problems. I tried finding a damage picture, but as there was no well-accepted international name or significant international interest in the storm, I couldn't find any damage pics, let alone any fair use or PD ones. Are there any other objections? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Once the issues raised by Kaldari are addressed (those also factored into my decision), I'll have no problems withdrawing my opposition. Caknuck 05:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks as if they mostly have been.--Rmky87 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Still no interwiki links? Caknuck 02:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Presumably there's no Tamil or Sinhalese article; neither the Tamil nor Sinhalese Wikipedias are very large, so that should be no surprise, and the cyclone was not especially devastating. (Even the 1970 Bhola cyclone only has a very short article in Bengali.) —Cuiviénen 02:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sorry, it's a good article, and I would definitely support for GA status, but there just isn't enough here to be a featured article. I'm sure not much more can be written on the topic, and I know that length is not a specific requirement, but FA's are supposed to be examples of our very best work. I think more comprehensive topics better serve this end. --Mus Musculus 03:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • What about Hurricane Irene (2005)? That is even shorter than this article. Length is not a requirement at all, it's comprehensive. Why is the fact an article is shorter than others mean is not an example of the best? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Length is not a part of WP:WIAFA, comprehensiveness is. Is something in particular lacking in this article? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, you're right. What I'm trying to convey is that I think FA's should be topics on which more can be written. But I realize now that this isn't the place to try to change the standard. --Mus Musculus 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, article looks like it meets the FA criteria to me, and length is not an issue (now, if it were only as long as Tropical Storm Lee (2005), I'd worry...). --Coredesat 05:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support, as the only pending issue, the check by regional editors, didn't bring any issues to the surface, and I cannot identify any either. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:08, 17 February 2007 (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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.