Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Tropical Storm Erick (2007)
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:Karanacs 19:52, 30 September 2008 [1].

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

edit
Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone


I know it's very short. However, it is equally very comprehensive. I'm trying to set a precedent for FACing less-notable storms, and this is a textbook lesser-notable storm. I'd like to know what your opinions are on this. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination. I realize that Wikipedia's editors, sometimes rightly so, are opposed to short articles being promoted to featured article status, and thus, even if this is promoted, will probably not demonstrate "Wikipedia's best work". If and when the discussion ends at WT:FAC ends, and pending the addition of a minimum size limit to the criteria, I may renominate this in the future. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything I should do to archive this? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's see, if I let you get this one through, then you'll send even more storm FAC's our way, in a craven attempt to boost you and Hink's rankings... that I cannot abide! Image license, author, et al all check out, though I can see from Image:Erick 2007 track.png why this isn't a longer article- that has to be the most boring force of nature I have ever seen. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, there's really not much at all to write about a storm that lasted for about 3 days in the middle of the ocean. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giggy. EC with David.

  • Images fine.
  • Sources fine.
  • "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that, despite strong wind shear managed to organize into a tropical depression later that day." - awkward comma use. Probably add another one after shear? Play around with it a bit.
  • Lead needs wikilinkage; tropical depression, remnant, etc. What are these things?
  • "leaving the convection displaced from the low" - ????
  • "closer to the center" - center of what - for extra clarity
  • "Additionally, because of the lack of damage, the name Erick was not retired and is scheduled to be used for the 2013 Pacific hurricane season." - no idea what the first part means - "retired" in this context?
  • I'm not convinced that labelling something this short as featured is a good idea. I'll wait for thoughts from others. The thing is that FA = eventual TFA, and as a reader I'd be a bit cut to get this as my article for the day.

Giggy (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Copyedits done. I understand your concern about the article being short, but the article is comprehensive, so it passes WIAFA. Also, I'm guessing Raul might spare these short articles from the Main Page, so I don't think that's a problem. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Will hold off supporting for a bit, still slightly concerned over the last point. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a {{fact}} tag. What's more, the "fact" it follows isn't true, according to this. Otherwise, everything looks good. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: Actually, I missed the "Pacific", and it is true if you look at this, but I don't think that's a reliable source. Where did you find this, Julian? Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reference added. It has never (or not commonly) been brought up that the retirement fact, which appears in nearly every hurricane article, needs a cite, but I added one nonetheless. The source I added is that NHC site you listed on your first post, that shows it if you go down to the Pacific names. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you know, if THIS passes, ya'll will be swamped with obscure bishops, right? Mellitus Honorius of Canterbury ... just be warned! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that depends if anybody is good enough to get those articles to FAC. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • SOME of us have to do useful work like check other folks sourcing at FAC. It kinda limits some of our time to ... write articles. (hums) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Heh, well then it's a trade off. I write the quality articles and you review 'em for reliable sources and such! Also, what do you mean about useful work? I bet a storm that lasted for 2 days in the middle of the Ocean that nobody knows of except for the NHC is a core topic. :-) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is nice to see that an article created essentially to spite me is going to make it all the way to FA, because it means that I win. :) Support, although I'd like to see National Hurricane Center linked in the publisher field for at least one reference, and ideally all. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, yeah, but still, I think this is one of the only FACs that's being considered for merging... anyway, I added the links. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Sloppy work - in a text of less than 500 words there are TWO howling spelling mistakes! This means that over 0.4 per cent of the entire text is misspelt. Proportionately, this is equivalent to more than 40 spelling mistakes in, say, the Samuel Johnson article; imagine what a fuss there would be over that. There is the sense of an in-crowd enjoying an in-joke here, and good luck to them, but this is in fact a carelessly written article about a non-event, flattered by its present C rating. Sorry. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Typos fixed, though I would appreciate if you didn't call two simple grammar mistakes "sloppy work". Also, the C-class rating was put there as a place-holder until the FAC passed/failed. Cheers, and thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry my comments made you snappy - they were intended mainly in a light-hearted vein, as I imagined was the case with this whole nomination. It appears, however, that you are serious, and actually believe this to be an example of Wikipedia's best work. So I'd better get serious, too. Featured article criteria require that as a primary condition for promotion the prose should engage the reader. What could possibly be less engaging than this article's opening sentence, describing Erick as "a weak tropical cyclone that caused no effects on land or sea"? You might as well just say "This is an article about nothing". Now articles, or TV shows (Seinfeld) about nothing can be very engaging, if sufficient genius is applied, but lacking that, the brief prose which follows this opening statement is merely deadly dull - it's not your fault, but nothing happened to provide any spark to the account. You assert in response to the comment below that "all named storms are notable", which is highly questionable on any proper definition of "notable", but even so that doesn't mean that they are all suitable topics for individual encyclopedia articles. In real-world terms this "event" wasn't so much non-notable as non-noticed, and by your own account the name was promptly re-assigned for future use on a proper storm, which confirms the official view that this was a threat that didn't materialise. OK, it might have done - so write an extended article about the factors which could have arisen, how or why they didn't, how often these circumstances occur, etc. etc., and you might have an informative and engaging article. But on its own - no, no, no. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was actually serious about nominating this, and I feel somewhat offended that you thought it was a joke. That's besides the point, however, and I would like to know what you think the article needs, as I see your oppose still stands. The article is as comprehensive as it's going to get. The storm lasted for 2 days in the middle of the ocean. No ships encountered the storm. It never affected land. And the storm was a storm, so I don't quite understand what you mean by saying it didn't materialize. All but the most catastrophic storms have their names go on to the next cycle. Since I would still like this to pass, is there anything I could do that could get your support? After all, it was Raul that said that any article that passes AfD can become featured. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I misconstrued your motives, though I think I'd actually have preferred it to have been a joke. What didn't materialise was the threat and/or consquences that might have arisen from this weather system had it developed differently, but it didn't and thus became a non-event. Whether the article is technically qualified to become featured is, to me, beside the point. I am technically qualified to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but don't expect this to happen. As to what you could do to gain my support, please see the end of my previous comment. Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added quite a bit of information on the storm's statistics and forecasting, and I changed the opening sentence. I can't help, though, that the storm didn't effect land. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fear we won't ever agree on this one, though I recognise that you have tried to expand the meagre content. This hasn't made the prose more engaging - my primary objection to the article - but the subject seems so inconsequential that I suppose nothing can. I don't have any more time to argue about it, however, so I'll strike the oppose. Sorry I can't be more positive, but I am somewhat apprehensive about where the promotion of this article, if it occurs, may lead us in future. Anyway, enough said. Brianboulton (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: To Brianboulton, using your analogy, since you are qualified to become prime minister (just as this topic is notable enough to be an article and hence featured), with enough work you could become PM if you really wanted to and enough people voted for you. That's what is happening here: Julian has put in a lot of work into this article to bring it up FA criteria, and it's up to us to look at the problems with the article, not just the size. Besides, we wouldn't hear of people voting down the perfect candidate for PM just because he/she was too short (that's a hyperbole, but you get my drift)! It's good that this is the biggest issue for this FAC, as opposed to sourcing issues or picture problems that kill so many FACs. Sorry for butting in, but I just wanted to add my two cents. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak oppose and I fully expect this to be unactionable, as I'm unable to identify a condition that could really be remedied. I'm primarily concerned that this article relies on one source (National Hurricane Center), a condition for which we even have a cleanup template. The nature of the source's coverage, further, is problematic. The NHC presumably didn't track/record this because it was notable or important, but because it had the potential of becoming notable or important (e.g. making landfall, etc.) - potential it did not fulfill (i.e. a "non-event" per Brianboulton). My impression is that the NHC would track all such weather systems as mere mechanical exercise, not because such a system is particularly meaningful. Secondly, I appreciate brevity and succinctness and recognize fully the distinction between comprehensiveness and length, but I don't think this "exemplifies our very best work". I've deliberately not nominated Pearson's Candy Company, despite it having every major detail that has been published (comprehensive), for the same reason. I subscribe, as not all do, to the idea that some articles just can't become featured; it doesn't mean they aren't fine articles, it just means they aren't the tops. Эlcobbola talk 22:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All named storms are notable, as they have significant coverage in reliable sources—namely the NHC. There is extremely little about the storm, so it is comprehensiveness. Would it help if I added redundant non-NHC sources? I wouldn't find any more information, but at least it would give it a sense of broadness. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, I tried to expand the Impact section with some odds and ends about statistics. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - OpposeComment - Am I being stupid? I don't understand this:

Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone and fifth named storm of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season. The eighth tropical cyclone and fourth named storm of the season, Erick originated from a tropical wave that emerged off the coast of Africa, traveled westward across the Atlantic, and emerged into the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Was it the fourth or the fifth and why say the same thing twice? In trying to work this out, I didn't get any further into the article. A very poor start. Graham Colm Talk 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same thing. A tropical cyclone can be a tropical depression, but still not have attained tropical storm status, and was thus not named; so there might have been a depression early in the season that adds to the higher number of tropical cyclones than named storms. I tried to clarify it some to make it more clear that a tropical cyclone and a named storm are not always the same. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the first two sentences of the Introduction difficult to understand. Perhaps the second sentence needs to start with "when" or "as".
  • In the same sentence:
The eighth tropical cyclone and fourth named storm of the season, Erick originated from a tropical wave that emerged off the coast of Africa, traveled westward across the Atlantic, and emerged into the Eastern Pacific Ocean. - The storm emerges twice it seems.
  • Is ...managed to organize into a tropical depression... just jargon for "formed"?
  • Here, Wind shear prevented development for a few days further development? development of what exactly?
  • Is the low acceptable English or just lazy jargon?
  • Here, convection formed closer to the center of the storm, presumably air convection, I haven't a clue. For such a short article there's no excuse not to explain these terms in full.
  • The transcluded, (why transcluded?) picture of the storm path adds nothing to the article. The legend is particularly poor. I live in the center of England, after looking at the image for about two minutes I recognised the coast of Southern California. It's a very unhelpful image.

I found this article dull. I might be because in England we only get boring weather, but I found the prose to be lazy. Our weather forecasts are written and presented better than this. FAs are supposed to exemplify Wikipedia's best work. Graham Colm Talk 15:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with everything, except the image. It's WP:WPTC standard to include such a track map in every tropical cyclone article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain my opposition, because I cannot support this article's FA candidature; it's little more than stub about a transient atmospheric phenomenon. And one from which we have nothing to learn. My critical comments were not addressed in full; the legend for the image of the route of the storm, for example, still gives no geographical context, and the prose is still dull. I don't think this article satisfies the FA criteria with regard to engaging prose. Given that some FAs take months and years to perfect, to promote this would lower the standard of Wikipedia's exemplary work. The FA process, as I see see it is about raising the required standard; should this become an FA, the standard will be lowered. Sorry to be so blunt and, please don't shoot the messenger, but I think the motivation driving this nomination is more about collecting FA trophies than building a great encyclopaedia. Graham Colm Talk 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must disagree. There is very little to write about this storm, and thus an oppose based upon length is not actionable. However, I will continue to polish the prose, and I hope you will in time feel comfortable supporting. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I expanded the track map caption. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm withdrawing my opposition and changing to neutral. There is little on this page that has caused me to change my mind but discussions on the FAC Talk page have clearly revealled that the FA criteria do not support the main issue I had with this article, and it is the criteria that should be adressed. Perhaps something like this should be added, "Short, but otherwise FA standard articles will not be promoted until all possibilities for merger with related articles have been explored." Graham Colm Talk 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Comprehensive, reminds me in a way of 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake. Maybe Julian might have an FA right after he becomes an admin. Yay! :) lolz —Sunday | Speak 20:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'll have to agree with LS. (Bou'in Zahra rules!) Nice work. Your friend Eddy O. D. Wiki[citation needed] 01:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the fact it passed south of Hawaii on August 5 should be mentioned - per here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Forgive me, but why not just make this a GA? –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could. But then inevitably I would send it to FAC again, as this is clearly the most comprehensive account of the storm anywhere, and is deserving of featured article status. As I indicated above, length isn't and shouldn't be a factor in deciding what can be considered Wikipedia's best work. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, forgive me if I'm missing something, but was there something wrong with the TOC that required it be removed (or not-allowed, whatever you want to call it)? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nothing requires the TOC to be removed, but it only automatically appears if there are three sections or more. The "see also" is hardly a section (two lines) and if I can see all the readable prose on one screen, I see no purpose for the TOC. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I encourage compact but complete and clearly written articles on an interesting topic that I am able to read without loosing my eyesight, although the FAC elite may disapprove. I find the prose compelling. It is refreshing to see a nomination that is not filled with arcane accusations of MoS breaches. (To User:GrahamColm: I find many FAC articles on English literary topics do not maintain my interest, even though I have an undergraduate degree in English literature from a prestigious university. Those articles also seem biased frequently. I do not oppose them because to me they are boring and POV. Let the FAC elite editors have their articles. Let others have articles also. Please allow for the weather interests of other countries.) —Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though I've supported above, I have to question removing the TOC. Again, why was that done? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, according to Wikipedia:Section#Table_of_contents_.28TOC.29, the TOC is only automatically generated if there are more than three headings. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is. I removed the NOTOC. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support you have received a lot of flack for this article, and I see nothing wrong with it. Keep up the good work. --Admrboltz (talk) 23:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—For such a short nomination to be promoted, the prose would need to be very good, and every possible niche of the topic exposed and detailed. It's not the FA Criteria as much as the instruction in the lead that comes into play here: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work". Would an outside visitor find it odd that we claim this for such a short article? Even for a more generous treatment of such a topic, the prose needs cleansing. The lead, just a slender paragraph, brought up these concerns, and casting my eyes further down I saw other glitches, too.

  • I had to read the opening sentence twice—it's barely grammatical, and unkind to the readers: "Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone and fifth to attain tropical storm status of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season." Why not: "Tropical Storm Erick was the eighth tropical cyclone of the 2007 Pacific hurricane season and the fifth to attain tropical storm status."?
  • "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that, despite strong wind shear, formed into a tropical depression later that day." Eeuuw; not a nice sentence structure. Again, the solution is easy by just rearranging the dominoes: "The wave spawned a small low pressure system on July 28 that formed into a tropical depression later that day, despite strong wind shear." And "low pressure system"—you might bend just a little for non-experts who will be eased through the prose by the use of the odd hyphen for double adjectives. Scientific American would use a hyphen; so would many good US writers. There are more instances further down.
  • "The next day, the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Erick, and while the storm moved westward, the shear quickly tore the storm apart. The storm weakened to a tropical depression on August 2 and degenerated into a remnant low later that day. Because the storm never neared land, no effects were reported in association with Erick." Oh dear. Repetitions: day day; the storm, the storm, the storm, the storm. Tearing a storm apart might sound odd to non-experts (even to experts), so even "broke up/down [or "dissipated"] the storm system" might be better—you're the expert. Something more formal, please. The last clause: I'm sure effects out to sea were reported; precision requires a little qualification here, and you could remove "associated with Erik" as redundant, and use "Erik previously to avoid the stormstormstorm etc. "Near" as a verb ... hmmm, easier as "did not approach land"? Rids us of the ne .. ne, too.
  • Can't more be said in the Stats section? Can't some of the info in the daughter article be specifically applied to this topic? Tony (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments. Done with all of your examples, and I added a little more to the stats section. I believe anything more would stray too far off-topic. More examples would be appreciated, if you find the time. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose You have not done the first of Tony's comments (the "the" is needed), and "tropical storm" is not linked here but is a few lines down. And so on. With two mistakes in the first sentence, even after one had been pointed out, the prose can hardly be called brilliant. I would expect more images in an FA (unlike some, I have no objection to galleries). As the thing apparently only hit 40 mph for one minute, there should be some pleasant seascapes as well as more satellite images. Given the current discussion on talk on very short articles, I also think the outcome of this should be delayed until we see if a lower size limit is to be imposed. Johnbod (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the review. I've adjusted the opening sentence, and I added another satellite image. Unfortunately, as the storm was so short-lived, I'm afraid there aren't enough satellite images to warrant a gallery section (which I believe are discouraged anyway). Cheers. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundamental oppose. I know it's late in the same, and perhaps it is too late to affect anything. However, I oppose the idea of something so short being featured. I believe it fails the standard for brilliant prose (for example, four sentence start "On August X"). I also believe it fails the stability criterion. If this is promoted, then that pretty much throws out any chance for a merge; FWI, there is still a technically active merger discussion, which the nominator even agreed to. (link). You can consider this inactionable, but I feel I have to state my position on the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, my points were merely examples of problems. I agree entirely with Johnbod's concern that there's a distinct possibility that a lower word-length requirement will soon be added to the criteria. Tony (talk) 17:33, 30 September 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/Tropical_Storm_Erick_(2007)/archive1&oldid=1088117596"