Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Hurricane Dennis in the United States/archive1

Hurricane Dennis in the United States edit

Note this was a Good Topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Hurricane Dennis	Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Florida - Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Alabama - Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Mississippi - Effects of Hurricane Dennis in Georgia

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Includes all the articles related to Hurricane Dennis and meets GA topic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This storm caused more deaths in Haiti and Cuba than it did in America, and also caused a third of its fiscal damage in Cuba. And yet there are 4 articles about America and none about Haiti and Cuba. Can you explain to me why there shouldn't be articles on Haiti and Cuba? Because at the moment, this looks to me like a gap - rst20xx (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is "Hurricane Dennis in the United States", which limits it to its impacts in the United States. I haven't gotten around to creating the Cuba and Haiti articles, but because they're much more difficult, I've put it off for now. I don't see what's wrong with having a topic cover one land region at a time. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yes, sorry, you're absolutely right, I just didn't read the name of the proposed topic right. My mistake. In this case, I support - rst20xx (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice job :) --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral — This is bordering on cheery picking by scope reduction, but I suppose that looking at its impact on one country could be considered a complete field of study. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is cherrypicking. Of the 89 deaths, only 15 were in the US. Sure the economic effects might have been bigger in the US, but relative to the economies in there I bet it was worse. The damages were 10 times bigger in Cuba than in Alabama but the latter gets and article. I truly believe there can exist a separate article encompassing all the Caribbeans, which would fill in the unbalance in the present proposal. Please, don't make wiki even more balanced towards the US than it already is. Nergaal (talk) 03:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it cherry picking? The topic covers everything in its scope. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't consider this cherrypicking either. This is just defining the scope of a topic narrowly, which is allowed. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well if it's defined too narrowly, then it constitutes oversplitting and is not allowed, as the topic would be needlessly small - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But, while the United States was spared the most severe effects, it suffered the most widespread, so the scope of the topic is not too small or tight. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have a citation for that? To me, since there were more than 5 times the causalities in other parts than in US would look the other way. How can you say that 20% of the casualities were the most severe effects? Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        To rst20xx's point, oversplitting is a recommendation in the criteria, not a rule. I also read it as meaning you should not have multiple topics where 1 topic would be more appropriate. If someone were to later nominate a topic on Hurricane Dennis in the Caribbean then I would support combining the 2 topics into 1 based on the recommendation against oversplitting, but before that happens I don't think oversplitting applies here. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why is there no article on Effects of Hurricane Dennis in the United States? I ask because this would be a much better main article for the topic Hurricane Dennis in the United States than the storm article? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern, but I feel such a page would be redudnant to both the subarticles and the main article. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, although I'd like to see the scope expanded to fit the main article in the near future. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 18:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on it meeting all the criteria and on my comments above. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment:~~Oppose: After scanning through the main article, the topic name/scope seems off. The main article is not just about "Hurricane Dennis in the United States" and is somewhat misleading. If those are all the sub articles to the main article, I think it should be titled simply "Hurricane Dennis". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If you read above, you'll see that there should be Caribbean articles too, Juliancolton just hasn't created them yet. Hence, if he were to change the name to remove "United States", then this topic would be incomplete - rst20xx (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With the current status, I think the scope is too narrow/mismatched for the main article. Since the Caribbean impact section was smaller than the US section, I figured the information didn't exist for a separate article. If you plan on creating a Caribbean or Cuba and Haiti articles, then I'd say wait until those are done. But right now, the topic seems falls between a mismatched scope and incomplete. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Oppose I have been following this from the beginning, but have been trying to decide how to express me opinion. I agree with Guyinblank25. I could not have said it better myself. Z gin der 2008-09-22T17:15Z (UTC)
Close with no consensus to promote - this is a tricky one, to be sure, but while most people favour promotion I don't feel we can say there is consensus for it (the vote is currently at 5-3-1). You have a fantastic start, but it seems you need those Caribbean articles - rst20xx (talk) 14:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]