Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/archive2

< 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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 21 April 2023 [1].

Hurricane Ophelia (2005) edit

Nominator(s): ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After letting things sit for a bit I've decided to bring this back to FAC for another go. The previous nomination failed after becoming stale, but I firmly believe it remains at the highest quality the site has to offer. For newer reviewers, I hope you enjoy the read on this oddity of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has had (passed) a CCI check; see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ophelia (2005)/archive1#CCI check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Licence and use of the files seems OK to me, but File:Ophelia 2005 rainfall.gif should probably have a link to the source webpage, not to the actual file URL. ALT text seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the link for the aforementioned file to the Ophelia page ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added a revised version of the track map: File:Ophelia 2005 path.png. This has slightly different colors that adhere to MOS:ACCESS per a recent RfC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I supported it last time after giving it an extensive review, and the article is just as good, if not better, than it was previously. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SC edit

Putting down a marker: will be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "it organized into": that seems an odd use of "organized". Transformed or changed would be better. (If it's standard terminology for weather systems, then it may be OK, but it's a borderline WP:JARGON point.
    • It's standard wording for weather events and is used commonly in news media not just the science field. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dissipating on September 23 over the North Sea": looking at the track map, that's not the North Sea: it's the Norwegian Sea. (I appreciate the source may say something different, but it's wrong, if the map is anything to go by: it may be worth doing some searches to see if there is anything that says Norwegian Sea, and if not, just leave as is. At some point someone from Norway will comment on it!)
    • Corrected, simple map-based judgement should be a problem with the coordinates readily available. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2,000 people utilized": used? (It's normally always better to go for the shorter more simple word)
Background
  • "by almost all standards of measure": this doesn't need to be a quote – it can be reworded
  • "a record-tying": do we need this? The whole paragraph is about how many records there were and the grammar is clumsy
  • "aforementioned": Are these the ones from the previous sentence? If so the word is superfluous

Done to the end of Origins: more shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

Fluctuation
  • "anything but straightforward": again, this should be reworded, rather than quoted
  • "This marked the earliest formation of a season's fifteenth named storm.": I'm not sure what this means
    • It's the earliest date the 15th storm of a given season formed. Basically the rate at which storms were forming, in this case it was faster than ever recorded within the hurricane center's database. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
North Carolina impact
  • "spits and spurts": reword, don't quote
    • Removed the quote entirely, sentence is unchanged without it ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "compontent": component?
  • "Ophelia ultimately dissipated on September 23 over the North Sea": ditto my comment on the Norwegian sea above. I was a bit surprised to read about the North Atlantic and North Sea in a section titled "North Carolina" too.
Florida
  • "people utilized the shelter": "used" would be better – here and in subsequent places
  • "Shipment of an external tank to": tank? Armoured, water, petrol, sceptic or storage?
  • "struggled with evacuation decisions": another quote that should be rephrased. Doubly so in this case as it raises more questions than anything. It's best to explain what the problem was, rather than using an unclear quote.
Elsewhere
Canada
  • "hyped...at all".: per WP:ELLIPSES this should be "hyped{{nbsp}}... at all" to give "hyped ... at all"
Southeastern United States
  • "occurred in poor drainage area within Jacksonville": a poor drainage area?
  • "A teenage surfer went missing about 200 yd (180 m) off the coat of Folly Beach, rescue operations were suspended on September 14 due to continued rough seas": this is a comma splice that needs to be addressed.

Done to the end of Southeastern United States; more to come. - SchroCat (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing once more

North Carolina
  • "possibly overprepared [sic]": why sic? I'm not sure it's needed
  • "By September 16, only 5,700 homes remained without power": probably best to give a date when the power went off, or this has no frame of reference
  • "the infamous Queen Anne's Revenge": "infamous" is POV and unsupported by the source
  • "This sewage line previously burst in July and later burst a third time in October": if these two are unconnected to Ophelia, then you don't need this
Aftermath
  • has to change... Same ELLIPSES point here
  • "disruption to ferry service": to the ferry service or to ferry services?

That's my lot. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review SchroCat! I've either addressed or replied to all of your comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good work - I'm happy with the changes (or the explanations), so happy to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TAOT edit

I started a review last time, but an unfortunately-timed bout of Lyme disease forced me to drop out of reviewing. Ticks are not very active this time of year, so hopefully I can see this through this time. I will add comments in the near future. I do ask that you check if my comments from last time have been addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're doing better Trainsandotherthings. Thank you for coming back to this review. I had either replied to or addressed your comments on the previous nomination. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unusually busy in real life lately (didn't even touch my computer at all yesterday) but I will get to the current review hopefully tomorrow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Does it make sense to mention which ocean the hurricane was in in the first sentence?
    • The year and land context is more important imo, the ocean is mentioned in the second sentence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about linking or not linking states.
    • Linked Florida in the lead, not sure where other missing ones are? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • largely dominated by a lull between two ridges to the north and east if I'm wrong ignore this, but would this be a Trough?
    • That is correct but the sources don't specify that it's a trough and just call it a lull between ridges so I don't think we're allowed to call it a trough. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • and gradual upwelling of cooler waters from its meandering path on its meandering path?
  • Both paragraphs are rather long, is it worth breaking the lead into three paragraphs?
    • I'm not sure it would provide much benefit. The opening paragraph covers meteo info and the second covers its effects. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More than 2,000 people used public shelters by the time of its closest approach to land. This is awkwardly worded, suggest something like "More than 2,000 people used public shelters when it approached land."
  • In the infobox, can you be more specific than "Europe" for the locations impacted?
    • I think I just forgot to remove it. I couldn't find any source linking any impacts in Europe to ex-Ophelia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to come later. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

  • Suggest linking Subtropical cyclone.
  • By September 4, two defined areas of low pressure consolidated along the trough You haven't yet introduced to the reader that a trough was present. Recommend making this clearer.
  • Based on satellite data and synoptic observations, the NHC estimated that Tropical Depression Sixteen formed around 06:00 UTC It is a bit ambiguous whether you are referring to the storm that would become Nate or Ophelia here, suggest making this more explicit.
  • As part of a joint project between NOAA and Aerosonde Ltd, an AAI Aerosonde (an unmanned aerial vehicle) was flown into the outer bands of Hurricane Ophelia on September 16. Suggest simply "an AAI Aerosonde unmanned aerial vehicle was flown..."

Preparations

  • The hurricane's erratic movement led to watches and warnings being issued for a much larger region than necessary across the East Coast of the United States, with some forecasts calling for landfalls that did not verify. You have two Sfns here to the same source, these should be combined into a single Sfn which has the two page numbers in question.
  • Link Hurricane Katrina as the first mention in the body.
  • I recommend reorganizing the Florida paragraph so all sentences discussing beach erosion are next to each other.
  • Governor Mark Sanford requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to suspend transport of Katrina refugees to the receiving center in Charleston and Colombia. Two issues here: the first instance of the word "to" should be removed, and "receiving center" should be "receiving centers" as you list two locations.
  • In Chatham, Massachusetts, This link should probably be unpiped, as you use the exact full name of the article in the prose already.
  • The Halifax Daily News described city residents as "surprisingly complacent", with media broadcasts "[not] ...at all". I don't understand what this means, especially the second half of the sentence.
  • Will continue soon. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above comments for the preparations section have been addressed Trainsandotherthings. It'll take me some time to get to further comments per the note I made below. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Understood. I'll get the rest of my comments done soon and you can respond to them when you have a chance. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

  • Link Beach nourishment.
  • Offshore, the Sanmar (callsign V2EX) measured sustained winds of What exactly is the Sanmar? Is this a cargo ship? Recommend specifying. At first I thought it was an offshore weather station.
  • I don't have any comments for the aftermath section, looks good to me. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken care of the above comments, Trainsandotherthings. I couldn't find any information beyond Sanmar being a ship. The callsign didn't show up on any marine traffic finder website for some reason. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I read through the article again and I don't see any other concerns. Happy to support on prose at this time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators – I will be traveling a lot for the next two weeks and will have limited access to computers. I don't use my phone to edit Wikipedia so I will likely be unable to respond to comments for a little bit. Any comments I do not address by tomorrow will be taken care of when I return home at the end of the month :) ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have returned and can address any further comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Licensing satisfactory, source links working -- pass. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass edit

I'll start this shortly. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, only the 171 references. No wonder nobody picked this one up already!

I'll start off by checking the formatting.

  • No publication year required for ref #10 "What is UTC or GMT Time?" – not given in the source.
  • Ref #50 "Beven & Cobb 2006, p. 4, 16." should use "pp." not "p."
  • Ref #82 "Ophelia Weakens" is an AP article, so to maintain consistency with your other citations, should note that.
  • Ditto for ref #83 "Ophelia", which is a continuation of the same article. Though see my later point (#137).
  • Ref #118 "Hurricane Ophelia": should this list Mark Malsick as the author/editor?
  • Ref #132 "Ophelia unearths medical artifact frrom Blackbeard's ship" is an Associated Press article, so to maintain consistency with your other citations, should note that.
  • Ref #137, I find it slightly odd that you've split this within the reference, when similar wasn't done for refs #82 "Ophelia Weakens" and #83 "Ophelia", for example.
  • Ref #154, no need for the period before GIF.
  • Refs #156, #159, #160, be consistent whether "Federal Emergency Management Agency" is the author or publisher.
  • "Beven, Jack L.; Cobb, III, Hugh D." I believe, per MOS:JRSR, this should be "Beven, Jack L.; Cobb, Hugh D. III"
  • Searches in all the normal places don't reveal any obvious omissions.
  • Spotchecks carried out for source/text integrity, and for copyvio, close para-phrasing:
    • "The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record at the time by numerous metrics, with 28 tropical or subtropical storms forming throughout the year. It also proved to be a ruinous year, with thousands of fatalities and more than $100 billion in damage." Cited to ref #1. I am concerned about close paraphrasing between the first sentence, and the source: "By almost all standards of measure, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active of record. Twenty-eight storms—27 tropical and one subtropical—formed during the year.."
    • "Later on September 9, Ophelia began moving slowly northeast in response to a mid-latitude trough." Cited to ref #22. All fine.
    • "..convection became increasingly organized as it moved back over the Gulf Stream." Cited to ref #33. All fine.
    • "Already suffering from a volley of six hurricane impacts since 2004, concerns were raised over Ophelia's potential effects in Florida. With an uncertain track, the main issue presented was beach erosion, especially in areas significantly affected by Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004." Cited to ref #53. All fine.
    • "In Chatham, Massachusetts, fishermen moved their boats to sheltered areas while the local harbormaster ensured docked vessels were properly secured." Cited to ref #91. Minor concern between "fishermen moved their boats to sheltered areas" and "fishermen were moving their boats to sheltered waters".
    • "A teenage surfer went missing about 200 yd (180 m) off the coat of Folly Beach. Rescue operations for the surfer were suspended on September 14 due to continued rough seas." Cited to ref #70. All fine, and I fixed the typo in this.
    • "President Bush signed this request October 7, designating ten counties (the requested six plus Brunswick, Dare, New Hanover, and Pender Counties) as major disaster areas." Cited to ref #159. All fine.

Nothing much of concern here; out of seven spotchecks, two have very minor close para-phrasing concerns, and the formatting and consistency points are pretty much all minor niggles. I'm pretty happy that this is a well-sourced and accurate article, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to go through all of these, Harrias! I went through and made the suggested corrections, the ref #82/83 was something I tried to find a year ago and never could so I gave up trying to match it with #137. I'm unsure how to address concerns of close paraphrasing with the first spot check. For the second one, would changing "sheltered areas" to "safety" fix the issue? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that would be enough for the second. Looking at the first one again, I think any change would make the wording too awkward, especially as a lot of the language used is common terminology that it would be weird to avoid. On this basis, I've made the tweak to the second myself, and I'm happy to mark this as passed. Harrias (he/him) • talk 19:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial # edit

If Harrias's source review works out, I'll look in tomorrow UTC, although im in no way a subject expert, so will be restricted to for formatting/MOS/prose aspects. Etc. SN54129 21:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Serial Number 54129, I think it's ready for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129 and Gog the Mild: just wanted to follow up since it has been over a week. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: I'm uncertain of what to do at this point since I don't want to pester SN54129 if they're not up for reviewing or if time is not allowing. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, let's just pester him anyway... Okay, SN, this is your final boarding call, if you can't make it we'll understand... 😉 Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consenus to promote without SN, and it's past last call. This nomination doesn't have to go home, but it can't stay here. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 21 April 2023 (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_Ophelia_(2005)/archive2&oldid=1151019149"