Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Elita
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 19:03, 9 April 2008.
[edit] Cyclone Elita
I'm nominating this article for featured article because some people told me to do it. I wrote it, with some help by Miss Madeline, and I believe it's another great tropical cyclone article. I would dare you to prove me wrong, but chances are you would find some things that the article could be improved upon. So, I dare you to prove me wrong, so I know what else can be done to the article. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments Well, it won't be me proving you wrong. Links work. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Heh, so would you be willing to support? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Support Very slight oppose I'll be happy to support when these pesky questions are answered, they are mainly things that just don't make sense to me at the moment.
* Is that a non-n-dash i see in the title of the 2003-04 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season? (teasing mostly, by the way).
For the geographically challenged folks amongst us (i.e. most folks) you might say where Elita moved ashore on 31 JanLead, first paragraph, the sentences starting "Elita weakened ... " You say it moved ashore, and then the next sentence says "The cyclone intensified again after reaching waters, ..." I got lost somewhere here. Did it make landfall three times? I suspect you'll have to give actual landmasses here for folks to understand what's going on. Also, the 'after reaching waters' seems to be missing something between reaching and waters, perhaps "open"?Isn't it the Seychelles?Storm history, first paragraph, second sentence. Not being a meterologist, what does "Located within an area of moderate wind shear, the convection persisted around a mid- to low-level circulation." mean? The second phrase is what's throwing me.When did the Mozambique National Institute of Meteorology advise people to prepare for the storm?
- All in all a very nice article. My main concerns are probably linked to not being a cyclone fan, so I have a bit of a lack of context for all the details. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, not sure about the article title, but I hope that's not too much of a problem. I clarified the lede (yea, that was a bit confusing). I'll take your word for it that its the Seychelles. The wind shear reference is a bit hazy, so I'll just remove it. The link doesn't specify when the Mozambique National Institute of Meteorology advised people to prepare, as, unfortunately, the news story came several days after the storm affected the nation. Thanks for the look-through. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hm. Our article on Seychelles doesn't ever say the in front. Better check with an MOS-maven on that one. It sounds better to me as the Seychelles, but that may not be correct. And I'm teasing about the dash in the title, not much you can do about it here except pipe the link which seems a bit extreme. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there's already been a discussion on whether to have "the" in the title or not on the Seychelles talk page, but they agreed not to. I think/hope I got the rest of your very slight objections. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support It's featured-quality, and well sourced and such. Nice job guys. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- It is worthy of featured quality at the moment, though I still have a few comments:
- The Aftermath section a whole bunch of figures I find slightly overwhelming
- It's made up of just 4 sections. The featured article criteria say:
-
It follows the style guidelines, including:a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming
- --Phoenix-wiki 19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I cut down on some of the stats in the aftermath. Regarding the featured article criteria, having five individual sections (including see also and refs, or just 3 for content) should not be a problem. The content is evenly divided in the same way as most of the other featured tropical cyclone articles do. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah okay, it's a great article, I support making it an FA then...--Phoenix-wiki 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support Had a good read through with an eye to copyediting. Not much needed doing, I rephrased a couple of sentences, fixed a spelling error. The prose is very good. The refs are from a variety of sources, all formatted consistently. Lots of nbsps everywhere. Images are all properly licensed. Very good job. Woody (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
