Wikipedia

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

< 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 SandyGeorgia 02:00, 3 August 2009 [1].

Tropical Storm Faxai (2007) edit

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meet FA criteria. Although this is a relatively short article, it's comprehensive of the entire storm, including the large difference between warning centers. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I like this article pretty much, but there is one thing that I can see right now that might cause some problems. When you do the difference among warning centers, you say: The Japan Meteorological Agency uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses 1-minute sustained winds.[12] The conversion factor between the two is 1.14.[13] JMA's peak intensity for Faxai was 100 km/h (65 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 120 km/h (75 mph) 1-minute sustained.[2][13] The JTWC's peak intensity for Faxai was 75 km/h (45 mph) 1-minute sustained, or 65 km/h (40 mph) 10-minute sustained.[14][13]. That seems good, but with the conversions between 10 and 1-min winds are the problem. The JMA only reports in 10-min winds and the JTWC only reports in 1-min winds so would that be OR? --Anhamirak 02:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→ "This policy does not forbid routine calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the information published by the sources from which it is derived." –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Anhamirak 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was my only problem, so support. (By the way, is this just our second WPac FAC?) --Anhamirak 02:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No; we have Typhoon Tip, Typhoon Pongsona, Typhoon Paka, and Tropical Storm Vamei. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support Anhamirak; the quick reply from JC; and the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image review, I'm a bit confused as to what I need to do exactly for the track map though. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think NuclearWarfare meant to tag the image for relicense to CC-BY-3.0, which I did. --an odd name 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, thanks AnOddName. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, AnOddName got it. Sorry I missed this earlier, but thanks for doing that for me. NW (Talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, since I made that pic, I switched it to the proper license ({{PD-self}}). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Theres nothing missing from the MH, Impact or Preps and it looks good.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. I added alt text to the lead image, to help you get started. Eubulides (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looked over it, and it looks fine to me on the basis of the FA criteria. Darren23 (Contribs) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, see belowComments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • "A Japan Airlines flight heading to Narita Airport"
  • "The storm traveled towards the northwest under"
  • Link and maybe spell out UTC on its first appearance in prose.
  • "The JTWC also began issuing advisories on Faxai"-->The JTWC also issued advisories on Faxai
  • "Around that time, the JMA upgraded Faxai to a severe tropical storm with winds reaching 95 km/h (60 mph 10-minute sustained)." The noun + -ing construction is awkward; see this excellent guide on how to fix it.
  • "In the following advisory issued by the JTWC, however, they upgraded the depression to a tropical storm based on the development of a well-defined central dense overcast." Why "however"? Is this a stark contrast to what might be expected?
  • No link for "sustained winds"?
  • "All Nippon Airways cancelled all day flights between Tokyo and the Izu Islands"
  • "Areas around Tokyo were notified about heavy rains" "about"-->of the
  • "Residents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris." Is there a missing word? "especially after sunset, avoid possible flying debris" sounds strange.
  • Spell out JST
  • "The rainfall in Miyakejima came close to surpassing the record daily rainfall for October 27." "came close to surpassing"-->almost surpassed
  • "Damages from cyclone totaled to "
  • "Three crew members had neck injures, one of whom also was cut in her thigh."-->Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but "Differences among warning centers" seems to be too small. It either needs some of the information about the differences moved down, or to just have the heading removed and be part of the previous section. I say this simply because it aesthetically puts forth a breach between two sections that seem to be close together. Two or three sentences from the last paragraph of the previous section could be pulled down if you want to preserve the "Differences" section. Also, the line "took off from Hangzhou Xiaoshan International Airport and was heading to Narita International Airport," could simply be put "Airport, heading to Narita International Airport,". The "and" distracts from the purpose of the sentence. "was hit in the head" By what? The woman? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done with most of that, aside from your final comment, which I'll leave to the nominator to sort out. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not thrilled with the prose. OK now; I've made a few little tweaks; do watch your omission of "to" or other little grammatical words in long sentences in which two clauses are joined by "and"—here, the fix was grammatical to convey the causality more smoothly. If you're to continue to present nominations, can you take steps to tighten it up, and/or to work with good writers on articles?

  • Which ENGVAR is it? I see "travelled" and "traveled".
  • "One woman sustained serious injures, and five others received minor injuries."—No male was injured?
  • Probably remove "also" in the lead, as redundant, and join the two sentences with a semicolon ("injuries; the plane").
  • "($1.5 million USD)." Is that the correct placement of the currency signifier? You can probably dispense with "US" as the international default—check MOSNUM. And the D is definitely redundant. Why link it? And there it is further down, linked as well ...
  • "Three crew members sustained neck injures, and one was also cut in her thigh."—last clause a bit weird (sounds like chicken for lunch).
  • "esidents were advised to stay indoors during the storm, especially after sunset, and avoid possible flying debris." Probably "to" before "avoid". Tony (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned up these examples, and will try to preform a more thorough copyedit in the morning. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The prose quality is fine, but it isn't "engaging, even brilliant". Rather, it's quite dull. It's researched from a handful of meteorological reports, most or all of which should be considered primary sources. From a brief search in ProQuest Newspapers, this storm doesn't appear to have made news an any English-language sources other than a blurb in London's Independent. As such, I'm not even convinced that it meets notability guidelines for having its own article, unless you can produce evidence that secondary sources, English or otherwise, covered it. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how they could be considered primary sources to be honest; it's not like the storm self-published. That said, the article definitely meets notability requirements, both by WP:WPTC and Wikipedia-wide standards, but notability issues are irrelevant to FAC. I don't think there's really anything we can do about its dullness. Personally, I find the article fascinating, but to each his own. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are primary sources because they are first-hand data written by people who are paid to record it. By nature, limited prose can be written from them, and no analysis, interpretation, or critical commentary is possible. This is where the dullness comes from—we have essentially a weather report in article form. It's short because no English-language media covered it. To compare, would you accept an article about a crime that was written entirely from the police reports or court documents? No. It would be dry and, likely, not comprehensive. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Last time i checked the Independent and Bloomberg were English-language media so that takes out "It's short because no English-language media covered it." Also as JC said it passes all the notability critera for WP with secondry sources. Jason Rees (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was hyperbole. I acknowledged The Independent above; the blurb is 62 words. I'm still not convinced this even meets general WP notability requirements. And Julian, notability is indeed relevant at FAC. From the criteria page: "In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes." --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should clarify: Notability is not my only, or even primary concern. --Andy Walsh (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm is notable, it killed one person and caused $1.5 million in damages. It definitely has enough sources to make it notable. Since notability is not your primary concern, can you clarify on what your primary concern (quibble in this case) with the article is? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quibble? At any rate, my primary concern is that the sources are almost entirely primary, making this little more than a re-hash of weather reports. As such, it's lacking any analysis, interpretation of data and events, or commentary. Also, I can't take your word for it that the storm is notable. For these two reasons, secondary sources are needed to balance out all the primary sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that is bad how? It makes all the information in the article reliable. I'm a bit confused as to how the secondary sources are needed, what do you mean by balance out? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a policy here entitled Wikipedia:No original research. From it: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." The page is thorough in its explanation of why we don't rely on primary sources. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in response to Laser brain's snide attacks on my support on my talk page, FAC is not about notability concerns. Therefore, mentioning notability at FAC is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I'm genuinely confused. Staff writers at news agencies are paid to cover news events. Does that make the Associated Press a primary source? –Juliancolton | Talk 22:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no matter, I've withdrawn my opposition. Have fun. --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, for this article, I changed the BT link to the ATCR which is easier to read and understand. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Although I'm not opposing, I do note that this article is on the small side for a FA. I urge those in the storm project to identify more meaty storms for working up to nomination. Tony (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comment: After my and others' actionable concerns have been addressed, I'm fairly certain this meets the FA criteria. I sympathize with Andy's (Laser brain's) comments to a degree. Notability and whether a certain article "deserves" to be an FA are valid but messy issues that have arisen several times. However, the truth of the matter is that bare bones meteorology (basically what this article is) is not interesting for many, and when you aren't interested, the article won't engage you no matter how well-written it is. Although "brilliant" prose is part of the criteria, if there's nothing that can be done to address the problem, then we just have to accept that and make the article as good as we can in all other respects. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat-involved support - I feel Dabomb87 hit the proverbial nail on the head. Granted, I'm familiar with the text to an extent where I an unable to identify any issues, but I'm confident it meets the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:45, 1 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tropical_Storm_Faxai_(2007)/archive1&oldid=1144462157"