Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Erika (2003)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Hurricane Erika (2003)
After working on this for, yada-yada-ya, I think this complies to FA criteria. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well written and well sourced. Great work. Jay32183 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great work as always Mercenary2k 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support. When is David Roth gonna make a rainfall graphic?!?! Other than that, supertastic! íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment since the event has now passed, did the Bahamas get rain or not? "The precursor disturbance was expected to bring heavy, yet needed rainfall to the Bahamas" Hmains 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- No idea. I've checked a lot of places a lot of times, but there was no info. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support per above. CrazyC83 05:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The article is well sourced, well written, and overall informitive. The only things I have wrong with it is that its a tad short, and the first portion doesn't have any refrences. However, how much is there to say about a Hurricane which did not last very long and was just barley a Hurricane and the rest of the article's citing makes up for the lack of it at the top, but some would be appruciated. Overall, though, I don't see why not. Jerichi 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, the WPTC prefers not to use references for the lede if the information is sourced further down in the article. We like having our ledes look nice and neat, though having unneeded sources for all of that (when it's further down) just clutters things. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Article guidelines say that the lead should summarize the later text of the article rather than contain its own information. To this end, any facts in the lead are elaborated upon later in the article and cited there. That has become TC Wikiproject policy. (This was an edit conflict with Hink above, but I thought my clarification was useful.) —Cuiviénen 21:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- (double edit conflict) Well, if you mean the lead section, it is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article; so, everything in the lead should be covered with more detail on the other sections in the page, and that's where the references are. If something that is described in the lead is not described with more detail on the rest of the article, it should a) be referenced, or b) ideally not be there. Other FACs have been opposed due to that, such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia. Titoxd(?!?) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, no problem with that then. Again, its a tad short, but it seems to be as long as it can get, so I have no objection whatsoever. Jeri-kun 23:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Good work, well sourced. --SunStar Nettalk 21:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Writing could use some work. Look at the second sentence for example. Derex 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Terrific article, well-sourced and organized. Hello32020 21:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support As usual, the Tropical Cyclone project sends another excellent article to FAC! Some quibbles:
- I'm not sure what the "however, operationally" is doing in the second sentence. Why is "however" needed? To what is "operationally" referring?
- Some repetitions in the lead: "quickly westward and strengthened under favorable conditions and made landfall as a hurricane on northeastern Mexico on August 16, but quickly dissipated inland." and "along with light rain, causing light"
- "it passed beneath a cold-core upper-level low" Wikilinks for the last part?
- "10,000 were evacuated from northeastern Mexico" Is there a way to avoid starting that sentence with a number? Perhaps "About 10,000"?
- According to the guide to layout, the See also section in this article isn't needed, since the terms are already linked in the article. Gzkn 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, got all of that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't know what role the "however" plays; how would the meaning change if that word were omitted? Is 70mph below hurricane speed or something? Derex 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes; minimum hurricane speed is 74 mph. Titoxd(?!?) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then, the sentence is as clear as mud. Since it's one of the first, that's important. It ought to say something like the NHS classified it as an X (tropical storm?) at the time based on 70mph winds, but later (a week?) revised it upward to hurricane force with peak winds of X. The sentence saying it was the xth cyclone, yth tropical storm, and zth hurricane is really confusing to someone who doesn't know the distinctions. particularly since the cyclone article starts off by saying that "hurricane redirects here". The lede is also a chronological oddity, as it first tells me that Erika moved west into Mexico and rapidly dissipated. then, it tells me that it caused issues in Florida and Texas. I understand that's probably b/c it treats the "hurricane" impacts first, but it's still a bit confusing. FA should be clearly written, and _certainly_ so in the first paragraph. This is still not. Derex 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I had a hack at it. The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the meteorological history of the storm, and the second paragraph summarizes the impact the storm caused, in chronological order. Titoxd(?!?) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- I revised your revision a bit :). Hope I didn't render it unintelligible. I'm still not clear what purpose "operationally" serves in the sentence though. Gzkn 00:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's a term meaning that as the storm was still "alive", the National Hurricane Center's regular tracking operations defined it as a tropical storm, not a hurricane. Titoxd(?!?) 01:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I had a hack at it. The first paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the meteorological history of the storm, and the second paragraph summarizes the impact the storm caused, in chronological order. Titoxd(?!?) 20:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Ok then, the sentence is as clear as mud. Since it's one of the first, that's important. It ought to say something like the NHS classified it as an X (tropical storm?) at the time based on 70mph winds, but later (a week?) revised it upward to hurricane force with peak winds of X. The sentence saying it was the xth cyclone, yth tropical storm, and zth hurricane is really confusing to someone who doesn't know the distinctions. particularly since the cyclone article starts off by saying that "hurricane redirects here". The lede is also a chronological oddity, as it first tells me that Erika moved west into Mexico and rapidly dissipated. then, it tells me that it caused issues in Florida and Texas. I understand that's probably b/c it treats the "hurricane" impacts first, but it's still a bit confusing. FA should be clearly written, and _certainly_ so in the first paragraph. This is still not. Derex 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes; minimum hurricane speed is 74 mph. Titoxd(?!?) 23:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still don't know what role the "however" plays; how would the meaning change if that word were omitted? Is 70mph below hurricane speed or something? Derex 23:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, got all of that. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
