Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Gordon (2006)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 by Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [1].

Hurricane Gordon (2006) edit

Hurricane Gordon (2006) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): User:Hurricanehink, Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink recently rewrote this article from the bottom up as part of a slow, but ongoing effort by the tropical cyclones project to improve the collection of articles related to the 2006 season to a featured topic. I thought the article had excellent content, and the potential to become a featured article, so I went on a copyediting spree and polished the article to a level where I feel it's ready to pass FAC. If you thought hurricanes are only for Florida, think again – individuals affected by Gordon may have well been eating fish and chips, drinking Guinness, or driving on the Autovía de los Pantanos. Juliancolton (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a co-nom and a Wikicup thingy for me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • Ref 16: page(s)?
  • Why use the slash notation when full author names are available (for example for ref 15)?
  • WP:MOS: make minor typographical changes to quotes and titles to fit our guidelines. For example, ref 17 should use a dash in the title instead of a hyphen
  • Be consistent in how you notate foreign-language sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. As for the PDF, large portions of the data are used in the article. Seeing as it's not a book and it's only a few pages, I don't think it's that imperative to give the page. As far as I know, the date formatting is consistent. The accessdate and the publish date, when available, are given in YYYY-MM-DD. For the Kansas City Star ref, that was based on an earlier revision of the article that had an active URL. Since then, the link became broken and it is unavailable in the wayback machine. I don't think the article should suffer because there is no active link for that, but at the same time, there is no page since it wasn't in the newspaper. The language icons are now consistent, as are the multi-author thingys. Finally, I adjusted the refs, with regards to the dashes.
  • I have a concern about the factual accuracy of the very first sentence; that "[it was] the first tropical cyclone to directly impact the Azores since 1992". Hurricane Tanya (1995) passed directly over the Azores and according to our article "impacted the Azores with significant wind damage reported". jorgenev 02:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tanya was extratropical as it moved through the Azores. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe we could emphasize the tropical part somehow? Juliancolton (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It does say "first tropical cyclone". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, we know that, but obviously it must cause confusion for some people (since Jorgenev expressed confusion not five lines above). I'm just thinking, maybe some people wouldn't immediately pick up the difference between a TC landfall and an ET landfall without some kind of notation directly contrasting the two. Juliancolton (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verified to be in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the alt text isn't very good right now. For one, there is no alt text for the image in the infobox. Second, "Storm path" is poor alt text for the storm path image. Having done the review for GA on this article, I have no further issues. After you fix the alt text, I will support.--12george1 (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: alt text is not currently an FA requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It must have only been a requirement in 2010. I will support since apparently alt text is not an FA requirement. But still, "Storm path" isn't very good alt text.--12george1 (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikicup participants reviewing Wikicup entries are supposed to declare their Cup participation. Please see FAC instructions on how to enter declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: Not much wrong here, just a couple of small issues:-

  • The words "since 1992" in the opening sentence are misplaced. The intended meaning, surely, is: "Hurricane Gordon was the first tropical cyclone since 1992 to affect the Azores while retaining tropical characteristics." That meaning is obscured at present.
  • There are references to the "United Kingdom" and to "Great Britain". I think a single term should be used.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points – fixed them both I believe. Thanks for the review. Juliancolton (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't know anything about hurricanes, but the article looks in good order now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Article appears solid all-around. I only saw a couple of small things to complain about, but fixed them myself to expedite matters; they weren't worth withholding support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Gordon_(2006)/archive1&oldid=1089084678"