Talk:Hurricane Kenneth (2005)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hurricane Kenneth (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 17, 2008.
March 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 1, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I believe the segment on the storm history to contain to many technical terms per WP:Jargon. It is good that these terms are wikilinked, but frustrating for the reader to have to click on these links and read the first couple of lines of the article to understand what is being said. However looking at other GA status articles of storms I have seen a similar amount of jargon is used, perhaps a little less as the storms in question did not have as complex a history. As such I have requested a second opinion.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't straight-forward, I can see why you asked for a second opinion. You're definitely right that the article contains jargon, though. From a quick reading, I found the following
Yes as MM says, wikilinks should not thinking "oh, if the reader doesn't know what that term means, they can just click on the link". This is because the linked article A) could be very poorly written, B) could be full of similarly linked jargon, C) could be a redirect somewhere else (as are two of the terms above) and most of all D) doing so completely breaks up the flow for the reader. As stated in WP:JARGON and WP:Make technical articles accessible each article should be written at an appropriate level for a general audience. This means avoiding the technical terms not crucial to the point being made, and cleary explaining those that are.
On the other hand, as there are so many specific storm articles, I cringe at the redundancy that following this guideline would require... but as you can never know which storm article a reader might encounter first, there's really no way to avoid it. As Wikipedia is not paper, the redundancy isn't a real problem, and the crucial terms above do need to be explained. Note that the explanation needn't be extensive—clarity here is more important than precision, as the full detail can be found in the wikilinked article. Just give enough so that a general reader only has to follow the wikilink if they want to. --jwandersTalk 07:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You definately need to further define the terms in the article, even I do not recognize one of them (Point maxima). Otherwise it is a very well structered article, but could use a few more citations in the lead. Keep up the good work! Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The term point maxima was removed after the initial review of the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All of these should be spelled out, or at least described in some detail now. However, for the record, I agree that banding features and the ITCZ should be described a bit, but I strongly disagree that eyewall replacement cycle and central dense overcast need to be given anything more than a wikilink. These topics are extremely large to be able to be given justice as in-text descriptors. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)