Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eye (cyclone)

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 04:21, 5 May 2007.

[edit] Eye (cyclone)

Yes, yet another article by WikiProject Tropical cyclones. However, this is not your typical FAC, as this isn't a storm article, but rather deals with the meteorological background information behind the "eye of the storm". It currently is a GA, it had an archived peer review, and a WikiProject review. While you can "blame" Runningonbrains the most for the article, as he is the primary contributor, I've worked a fair bit on it as well, so this can be called a self-nom. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Good in places, but a couple of points. The opening line contradicts the last three subsections regarding the idea that tropical cyclones are the only storms with eyes. Perhaps 'Hazards' and 'Other Storms' could be expanded a little. All the citations seem to be from good sources and are well put together technically, but in my own (humble) opinion one citation for two whole paragraphs isn't enough, and there are a couple of these in this article. Even if both paragraphs are form the same source, I think you should still put it in to make it clear, otherwise a reader may wonder where you got the info from. Great images and image captions (oft overlooked). SGGH 08:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, with some strings attached. Does Other storms need so have all of the subsections? An example for Project Stormfury might be good, though it's not necessary. The first paragraph of formation could use a source. Also, has there been any papers released in the last year with any better information regarding the formation of the eye? How it forms is pretty important, and the source provided is from 2006. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. -- as a scientific article, I still maintain that metric units should be the primary one. (primary oppose)
  2. September 12, 2001 --> wikify
  3. Hurricane Hunters is interesting, is there something similar in other parts of the world?
  4. "2.1 Detection" -- single section is bad style.
  5. 8:22 a.m. CDT --> 08:22 CDT (Add UTC too)
  6. I'm curious, the eye is much lower in pressure as compared to the rest of the cyclone. Does that constitute to a temperature drop too?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment More than willing to share the "blame" with you, Titoxd, as well as Thegreatdr, who also helped quite a bit. As the FAC on Tornado just closed, I suppose I'll get to work on satisfying these demands... -RunningOnBrains 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Will do that on the units. (I see that WP:MOSNUM has the "SI for science" a line above the "source first" recommendation, which was what why I put Imperial first). I'll fix the date and time, and give me a chance to figure out if temperature has anything to do with the eye (my gut feeling says no, but I'll double-check that). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • All the units should be corrected now, except one, which originally was in nautical miles, and was not 100% sure whether to modify or not. (It is listed in nmi (km, mi) format, with kilometers first, though.) As for the temperature in the eye - no, it actually is warmer; most cyclones have a cold-core structure, which means that their strongest winds are in the higher layers of the troposphere. Tropical cyclones, on the other hand, have a warm-core structure, as their engine is completely different (latent heat of condensation), and their inner structure is warmer than the surroundings.[1] Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, the Hurricane Hunters are only used in the Eastern Pacific and Atlantic tropical cyclone basins. There's no equivalent program in other places, AFAIK. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      Thanks for the fixes. Could the temperature thing be mentioned in the article too (if it's there, sorry I couldn't find it)? And secondly, that gif image needs to be converted to png (svg if possible). =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      What is the reasoning for converting a gif to a png?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. It's the recommened format for diagrams. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      Further discussion on this is off-topic for the FAC, taking to talk pages.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Just did the first one. I'll try to see whether I can do the second one as well, but I'm not 100% sure about how to do so. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It should have a PNG now, as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    I have replaced the png by an svg version I just created. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I've run into a bit of a snag: It seems that Image:Typhoon Amber concentric eyewalls.gif is not free after all, and will probably be deleted soon. I am trying to find a suitable replacement, but it is proving difficult.-RunningOnBrains 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There's Image:Cyclone Olaf 2005.jpg. The moat is very visible there as well, and it is a MODIS pic, so it is {{PD-NASA}}. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I can barely see it myself. I was hoping to get another one like Amber where it is obvious what the article is talking about. Maybe the image should just be omitted.-RunningOnBrains 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Good news Discussion at Commons has led to the discovery that the Typhoon Amber image is free for use in Wikipedia, so no replacement is needed
  • Comment—Quite good, but a few things to fix. This otherwise deserves promotion, so a final copy-edit of the whole text by an unfamiliar WPian would do the trick. Here are examples I easily picked up at the top.
    • "outside OF"? Remove redundant word.
    • "roughly-circular"—Remove hyphen.
    • "Which" occurs four times in two adjacent sentences in the lead; reword to avoid some of them.
  • "the eye, as well as the air directly above it, are warmer than their surroundings."—Plurality of the subject is questionable, so "are" is uncomfortable. Try just "and".
  • "three km (2 mi)"—Need to use a numeral when attached to a measurement.
  • "While it is very uncommon for storms with large eyes to become very intense, it does occur, especially in annular hurricanes. Hurricane Isabel was the eleventh most powerful Atlantic hurricane of all time, and sustained a large, 65–80 km (40–50 mi)-wide eye for a period of several days.[9]" Two instances of "very" in one sentence; remove at least the first, and possibly both. Here, "11th", as a two-digit number, might be better as a numeral. Remove "a period of" as redundant. Can "several" be replaced with the number of days? Tony 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Think I got all of those, except for the bit about how many days Isabel was a major hurricane with a large eye...I honestly don't know. Then again, I agree that the article needs fresh eyes for a copyedit, as I've been looking at this page for too long to notice the little things that are wrong. -RunningOnBrains 10:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any more concerns with the article? It has been two weeks since anyone has commented here... -RunningOnBrains 22:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. There seems to be maybe one too many images in the article. The entire right side is filled with images. Perhaps removing one? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I replaced the bulky Emily image with a more appropriate one. I also moved some around, I hope that is sufficient. -RunningOnBrains 17:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Any references for the diameter of the eye? - SpLoT // 15:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support (But I don't like to see mathmatical notation in non-math articles. Can you change this to prose? ... (≥ 51 km/h, 32 mph). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:32, 4 May 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.