Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Christmas 1994 nor'easter/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Christmas 1994 nor'easter
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 by User:Maralia 16:01, 29 October 2008 [1].

Christmas 1994 nor'easter

edit
Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone

I rewrote this article a couple weeks ago, incorporating a great amount of information, considering the type of storm and the time frame. It passed GA, had a brief review on its talk page, and has had some off-wiki criticism. If promoted, this will be the first featured nor'easter article, and one of only a few non-tropical weather FAs. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Context needed (especially global)
  1. across the state of Florida --> please mention the country
  2. the National Hurricane Center --> again, do mention the country name as National could refer to any country
    There's only one National Hurricane Center. Would that change still have to be made? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you have established the regional context earlier in the lead, its no longer necessary. Else it would be necessary to mention for people unfamiliar to the subject. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. flooding in South Carolina, and in North Carolina --> Add ...the states of...
  4. 1 p.m. EST --> UTC equivalent needed
  5. It peaked at around 970 millibars --> Can this be rephrased to removed the word "peaked"? peak suggests a maximum of sorts, this contradicts a nadir.
    "Peaked" does, indeed, suggest a maximum intensity. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but it falls from 1000 to 970. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 130,000 customers --> "customers" reads odd [global]
    130,000 people instead? =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 30 feet (9.1 m) --> precision (9.1) not needed for approximate values
    [check global] =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A map charting out the depression's path would be extremely helpful
  9. develop aloft --> jargon
  10. continued to rapidly deepen --> jargon
  11. NHC --> acronym needs to be defined earlier on
  12. 10 p.m. EST on December 22 and 1:30 a.m. EST --> UTC equivalents needed [global]
  13. A squall line --> expand to include context (First-time readers should not go clicking links to understand context)
  14. $6–$8 million --> How much in 2008 terms? [global]
  15. Are there no sources that deal with the aftermath? (rebuilding, beefing up warnings etc.)
    I haven't found such information after days of research. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Check the category "New England"
  17. "strong" is a relative word to use in the lead. How strong? Can this adjective be omitted?
  18. "contained some tropical characteristics." -- The word "some" adds confusion
  19. ""There was no front associated with it ... it didn’t qualify as a tropical storm" --> Who quoted it?
  20. "by the morning of December 26" --> in the early hours of...
  21. few ice jams in area rivers --> "area rivers" - I did not get it
  22. Winds gusted --> I do not think that gust can be used as a verb in this context
  23. ...at least 6 inches... --> Remove redundant wording in the sentence

=Nichalp «Talk»= 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Done with everything else. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what concerns me is that the second section deals with reported statements. "At this place, this happened" At that place, this happened', "this happened there" --> I'm not sure how to deal with it, but choppy statements like this do not make easy reading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Heh. Did NOT mean to put oppose there, the perils of editing from the road. Should have been comments, now corrected. Sorry Julian!

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead: * "It developed from an area of low pressure in the southeast Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Keys in the southeast Gulf of Mexico, and moved across the state of Florida." I'd suggest removing the second instance of "the southeast Gulf of Mexico".

  • I'd suggest replacing "rainfall" with "rain" in three places.

All: * All the digit-noun combinations need no-break codes per WP:NBSP.

  • I can't think of a reason to use "numerous" instead of "many". Four-letter words are among the best in the language.

Meteorological history: * "had moved to the north, allowing for" might be better as "had moved to the north, which allowed".

  • "When later analyzing the cyclone for possible tropical characteristics, there was insufficient data to fully assess the storm." Better might be: "Analysts lacked sufficient data to fully assess the cyclone's tropical characteristics."
  • "Deemed a hybrid storm, warm waters of up to 80 °F (27 °C) from the Gulf Stream, combined with cold air over the United States, caused the cyclone to rapidly intensify." Better might be: "Deemed a hybrid storm, the cyclone rapidly intensified when warm waters... "
  • "An upper-level low pressure system that had developed behind the storm began to intensify, and grew to be larger than the original disturbance." Remove the comma. If "grew to be larger than the original disturbance" could stand alone as a complete sentence, you would need the comma.

Effects:

  • "The warm system caused minor flooding due to melting snow, along with a few ice jams in local rivers." I'm not keen on "due to" constructions, which are often weak or indirect. Better might be "The warm system caused snow melt and minor flooding and a few ice jams on local rivers."

Southeast United States and Mid-Atlantic: *"A waterspout moved ashore on Key Largo, causing only minor damage." I look for ways to put nouns and modifiers together. In this sentence, "causing" seems for a split second to modify "Key Largo". The reader can and does figure out that it modifies "waterspout", but a smoother construction might be: "A waterspout, moving ashore on Key Largo, caused only minor damage."

  • "Up to 3 feet (0.91 m) of water flooding some homes in the region." "Flooded" rather than "flooding"?
  • "Red Cross Shelter" Should that be "the Red Cross shelter" or perhaps "Red Cross shelters"?
  • The hydroplaning link should be to the kind involving car tires rather than the kind involving motorboats. In addition, the phrase "one woman hydroplaned and struck a tree" isn't quite what you want to say. Her car hydroplaned.
  • "The fire was quickly spread by the wind, burning a field." This is another example of noun-modifier separation. "Burning" seems to be attached to "wind" but isn't. Better would be: "The fire, quickly spread by the wind, burned a field."
  • "Several trees, in addition to a sign, were brought down by the winds." This sentence relies on passive voice as do many other sentences in the article. Active is often better because more clear and direct. You might say, "The winds brought down several trees and a sign." This construction uses nine words as opposed to the original 13. I would suggest looking for ways throughout the article to use active voice instead of passive voice. (You probably can't do it with statements from sources that say things like "11 injuries were reported" without telling you who reported them.)
  • "confined leveled of sand dunes"?
  • "Roughly 112,000 Long Island Lighting Company customers received power outages at some point during the storm." "Received" is not the right word. Better might be "experienced". Or, "Power outages affected about 112,000 Long Island Lighting Company customers during the storm".

New England:

  • "Northeast Utilities, who... " A company is a "which" rather than a "who".
  • "ripped three barges from their moorings, one of which traveled across the Long Island Sound" You need to re-cast this sentence to make it clear that a barge, not a mooring, crossed the sound.
  • "... a 50 feet (15 m) Christmas tree" needs a hyphen. You can fix this by adding |adj=on to the conversion template. Ditto for "400 feet (120 m) section". Finetooth (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick-fail—Julian, this is full of loose, ambiguous language, as usual. Please withdraw it, have others assist to improve the writing to the required professional standard, and resubmit in a few weeks. This is not a free-advice fixit room: the reviewers are too scarce and overworked, and it's unfair to other nominators to expect extensive treatment.

  • Now we don't autoformat, "December 23 and December 24" can do without one word.
  • "As the storm passed offshore of North Carolina"—eeeuuw.
  • "rough surf eroded an 8 feet (2.4 m) ledge"—shouldn't it be "foot"?
  • "Upwards of 5 inches"—this is loose and informal
  • "several dams failed"—what, failed to produce electricity? What on earth does it mean?
  • ""one woman's vehicle hydroplaned and struck a tree, and another drowned after being hit by another vehicle." What, the car drowned? Tony (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archived; this nomination has been closed and archived. Please leave the {{fac}} template in place until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (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/Christmas_1994_nor%27easter/archive1&oldid=1080991464"