Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical cyclone/archive1

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 not promoted 17:04, 10 June 2007.

[edit] Tropical cyclone

Submitted the article for peer review, which netted no comments, so am submitting the article for FAC. Thegreatdr 19:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: The article seems rather long to me, I think some sections like: "Intensity classifications" and "Notable tropical cyclones" could be trimmed back considerable with content going to sub articles. Tomgreeny 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There already are subarticles on List of notable tropical cyclones and Tropical cyclone scales, which are much larger than the sections that were left. Removing more would leave the article incomplete. Besides, the article is only 45 KB of prose, within WP:SIZE's discretionary range (as calculated by User:Dr pda's prose size script); it just has a lot of tables and references which inflate the page size. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'll add the only question I had at the peer review, mostly so I can get more input on the issue: should the table on the Intensity classifications section have colors? I personally do not think it should have, and if it does, it should have the Wikipedia-wide scheme being used, {{storm colour}}. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There's a big blank gap in the first section due to the Weather nav template. Could you fix this? CG 06:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Which browser? I thought I just fixed this a minute or two ago... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Ok, it looks awful in IE... I just nuked the template. I had changed it because it left a gap in Firefox, and when I fixed it, it left a gap in IE, so it was a no-win situation. Besides, there was already one of those bars above already. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article needs copyediting. I shall just higlight the text in the lead section and the need for copyedit -
  • storm - needs wikilink
  • "A tropical cyclone is a type of storm system characterized ..." to be "Tropical cyclone is a storm system characterized ..."
  • "A tropical cyclone feeds on the heat released " - (1) remove 'A' (2) is there a better verb that can be used than 'feed'
  • "Because tropical cyclones are "warm core" storm systems, they are fueled by a different heat mechanism than other cyclonic windstorms such as nor'easters, European windstorms, and polar lows." needs re-wording
  • ""Tropical cyclone" is a meteorological term." - can it be included in the first sentence of the article as in "Tropical cyclone is a meterological term for the type of storm system characterized by ..."
  • "The adjective "tropical" refers to" - can we avoid 'adjective' here
  • "Depending on their location and strength, there are various terms by which tropical cyclones are known,... " - The cyclones are classified based on stength and location of occurance as ..."
  • lead's first para has "producing strong wind and flooding rain." while the third para has "can produce extremely strong and powerful winds, torrential rain, high waves, and storm surge." - can we avoid repeat in the lead section
  • "are born and sustained over" - replace with the noun 'develop'
  • the intent here was to show that the data for the article is alredy in-there and all i am asking for is a copyedit of the article. Kalyan 09:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've fixed several, but there are others I don't agree with. For example, points #3, #6 and #7. In others, there's a need for extra emphasis. The first sentence introduces that tropical cyclones can produce strong wind and rain, while the third paragraph picks up on that idea and expands it. I like the verb "feed": it produces a good visual image, while not making the language too technical. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support. The article has really come together over the last few months. There are a few little things I'd like to comment on, such as the length, as well as some sections not having sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It has 18 KB of inline citations, and tables and such are not counted in WP:SIZE. Which paragraphs are you talking about? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
    • The size seems fine, then. The first paragraph in Mechanics, first in Coriolis Effect, and the first two in observation don't have sources at the end. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose; great start, but some attention still needed:
  • There is a lot of repetition in section headings (see WP:MSH). For example, "Formation" has "Factors in formation" and "Locations of formation". Can those be reduced to "Factors" and "Locations"? The "Observation and Forecasting" section consists of only "Observation" and "Forecasting" headings.
  • Oh my goodness, that See also ! See WP:GTL; topics related to an article should be mostly included within the text of the article. Is all of that needed? Why are categories listed in See also, rather than included as categories. Can External links be pruned per WP:EL, WP:NOT ??
  • There do still seem to be prose issues, requiring a copyedit; starting at the bottom, I quickly saw: "Tropical cyclones that cause extreme destruction are rare, though when they occur, then can cause great amounts of damage or thousands of fatalities." And, undefined terms: "The deep layer mean flow is considered to be the best tool in determining track direction and speed." "Neither term is used in the South Pacific." What is used in the South Pacific? "It should also be noted that typhoons ... " It should also be noted is almost always redundant. I, too, suggest an independent copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I've asked a few users to have a look at the article, and I'll look at it over again in its entirety when I get home tonight. I've tried to cut off some links from the See also section, but I'm wary to cut off some that keep being added all the time (such as the hurricane seasons; they're a pretty good navigation tool, if you think about it). The current external links are what survived from this horrible mess (heh :)), but if there are some that you think don't belong there, we can discuss that. I'll deal with the section headings as well. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm... "deep layer flow" should almost have an article, but I'll see what I can do about it. Everything else should be more or less dealt with now. Walkerma and I gave the article a full copyedit, but if there was something I missed, feel free to point it out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Still some errors/citation issues in the article. For example:
  • Times of formation (seasonal lengths) - Is this going by official bounds? If so, the Northwest Pacific goes year-round, for example. If it's from the citation, it's still off, because the citation says "The Northwest Pacific basin has tropical cyclones occurring all year round regularly though there is a distinct minimum in February and the first half of March. The main season goes from July to November with a peak in late August/early September" while the article says the season starts in April and ends in January. "South Indian" should be clarified - the Southeast Indian Ocean is under TCWC Perth (and would thus qualify as being under Australia), while the Southwest Indian is under MF. Perhaps it'd be better to use the dates as given in the various Tropical Cyclone Op Plans?
  • Times of formation (seasonal averages) - Where are the seasonal averages from? They don't follow citation 26. They're not in the citation. Also, why has 95 kt been chosen as the bar for Cat 3? 100 kt 1-min translates roughly into 90 kt (87.7, using the 1.14 factor). 95 seems a bit arbitrary?
  • An important one: The WMO recently updated its website and pages. WMO citations from before this update are all now 404s and need to be updated.
  • I'm sure there are a fair few more mistakes, which I'll post as I find. – Chacor 07:42, 9 June 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.