Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007)/archive1
- 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 17:33, 9 June 2009 [1].
Subtropical Storm Andrea (2007) edit
- Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it's June 1st, the start of hurricane season, and we just had a hurricane TFA. Two fellow hurricane editors took a look at the article to make sure it was up to scraps, and they suggested I FAC it. Here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Everything seems to be fine. mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose Forgot to check references. I found 13 dead links and one non-applicable reference. mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least two dead links which need fixing.--Otterathome (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per dead links, otherwise the article is fine. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Support Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Some fixed. Not sure what to do about the dead tropical disturbance statements, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead links all sorted Jason Rees (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some fixed. Not sure what to do about the dead tropical disturbance statements, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Current ref 14 (Rhome..) is lacking a publisherNewspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I'm not seeing any deadlinks with the tool at the moment.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher (National Hurricane Center) added. But about {{cite news}}: Why? Isn't that going to break the next time the template is changed? Why is such a widely-used template not following the MoS anyways? </rant> Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if you think about it, the template makes sense in terms of newspapers. The publisher of a newspaper is the company that publishes it. The newspaper itself is the work. Look at it in comparison to {{cite book}}. The thing in italics in that is the title of the book, and the publisher is in plain text. All the cite templates actually make sense. {{cite web}} uses work for the overarching grouping on a website, so something like DANFS is the "Work" and the publisher is the Naval Historical Center. Just think "work" as the title of the book and publisher as the people who pay the bills. (And we don't need publishers for newspaper cites, unless you're really anal.)
- I guess I should make it explicit: I fixed it a while ago... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if you think about it, the template makes sense in terms of newspapers. The publisher of a newspaper is the company that publishes it. The newspaper itself is the work. Look at it in comparison to {{cite book}}. The thing in italics in that is the title of the book, and the publisher is in plain text. All the cite templates actually make sense. {{cite web}} uses work for the overarching grouping on a website, so something like DANFS is the "Work" and the publisher is the Naval Historical Center. Just think "work" as the title of the book and publisher as the people who pay the bills. (And we don't need publishers for newspaper cites, unless you're really anal.)
- Publisher (National Hurricane Center) added. But about {{cite news}}: Why? Isn't that going to break the next time the template is changed? Why is such a widely-used template not following the MoS anyways? </rant> Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support though i suggest something about the long gap between Cliff and Andrea as i have read somewhere its a record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Rees (talk • contribs)
- Support Since refs are fixed, I see no reason not to support. mynameinc (t|c|o|r) 20:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image concern as follows:
File:Maystormvapor.gif: please specify the source (navigation directions or link to the sub page), which sub-page of http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/trop-atl.html does this animation come from?Wikipedia:Image use policy#Animated images also recommends the use of only small animated images. At 4681.58 KB, the thumbnailed animation is pretty hefty; per the IUP, large animated images should be linked via a static image.
Other Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is a "floater", which means it is a zoom in of a water-vapor scan from the GOES-EAST satellite (the normal link for the unzoomed animation would be http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/eaus/loop-wv.html). However, since there are only four available floater channels (for reasons too long to explain in here), the exact link in which the image was located (probably http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t1/loop-wv.html or similar) gets overwritten every fourth tropical storm, when the rest of the floaters have been allocated and the counter loops around. So the most precise way to get to floater images is to go to the original link (or to http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/PS/TROP/floaters.html) and scroll down to the floaters section, and pick one, as that is how the image was originally obtained. However, it is not available there anymore (at least without purchasing the relevant GOES-EAST data set...). So I'm not sure how to address your request. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Image use policy page doesn't give a size limit to animated images. and though 4.6 mb is pretty big, I feel it is worth it, as the loop is stunning in how it shows such an unusual formation occur. We have similar images on other tropical cyclone articles, since a stationary image often doesn't do a storm justice. As for the location of it, I apologize it doesn't have a static link, but I'm afraid Tito is correct. The same issue came up for another FAC of mine. I hope that isn't a problem. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can accept the image's license, see its talk page on Commons why evidence suggests so. As for the image size, I will let others decide on it if they desire. Jappalang (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ImageMagick is not rendering the image now, so we may have to get a static shot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The loop works fine for me. To avoid any issues, should we still replace it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It just started rendering for me again. I don't know... I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, one way or another. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The loop works fine for me. To avoid any issues, should we still replace it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ImageMagick is not rendering the image now, so we may have to get a static shot. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can accept the image's license, see its talk page on Commons why evidence suggests so. As for the image size, I will let others decide on it if they desire. Jappalang (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Anhamirak 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.