Wikipedia:Featured article review/2003 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC) [1].

2003 Pacific hurricane season edit

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones, talk page notification 2021-04-16

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to current FA standards. It has some entirely unsourced sections, other unsourced text, mostly relies on a single primary source (National Hurricane Center), and in general is quite short and lacking in comprehensive analysis. CMD (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The storm sections are definitely a bit short, but it's not that different structure wise from other FA's. It's not the articles fault that most of the storms affected land and the overall sourcing distribution is similar to other articles. The unsourced bits can be addressed easily as the same references are used in other articles. I do think the seasonal summary section could be beffed up but for something promoted 15 years ago, it's pretty decent I'd say. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - As FAR nominator, how does the progress look? There's been some work, but it looks like the names section is still unsourced, as is the damages section. I'm also concerned that the damages material is a bit contradictory at times - For instance, the table states that Olaf affected both Texas and Mexico, and had "minimal" damage, while the prose describes severe flooding that affected thousands of homes, but makes no mention of TX. Hog Farm _Talk 05:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't look up to scratch, with (what I presume is) the low-hanging fruit not dealt with. Regarding comparisons to other FAs as mentioned above, my reference was 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which went through FAR in 2020. Even in the case there's not as much to say for this article as there is for that one in Seasonal forecasts and Seasonal summary, the Storm names and Season effects sections are areas this article should match. CMD (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can deal with the low hanging fruit. As for the previous comment about Olaf, "severe flooding"!="minimal damage" per se, as "flooding" is not "damage". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 08:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The last edit to the article was September 26. @Yellow Evan: are you finished with fixing up this article? If so, post here and others (like me) will review the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some things but I still need to copyedit it and need to make all the referencing consistent. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~, no improvements since September 26, as mentioned two weeks ago by Z1720. FAR strives to keep nominations open as long as possible, particularly when work is ongoing, but several current FARs are stretching the limits of that generosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: - would you be able to take another look at this, to see if your concerns are still outstanding? Hog Farm _Talk 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They do, there remains an entirely unsourced section. CMD (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sourced; in the past, the season effect charts did not have a source option and it is the same information that is presented that's already listed in the prose but since that's changed, I added it. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see @Yellow Evan: did some more work on 11/2, although a skim reveals some issues to me, as well. There are prose issues such as "Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was $100 million.[45] Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was estimated at $100 million" appearing in the Marty section, the predictions table does not seem to be fully sourced, the various low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere, and some other issues. Hog Farm _Talk 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the rest, but what do you mean by "low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere"? Are you talking about the infobox? Past seasonal articles have passed FAC without that being an issue and I'm not really sure I can squeeze a citation in the infobox. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Yellow Evan: - Each of the little infoboxes for the storms in the section for each system contains an unsourced statement giving what the lowest pressure for each system was. Surely this can be worked into the prose description of the system and cited there, like the max wind speeds for each storm are? Hog Farm _Talk 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - They should be sourced in the seasonal effects table. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Fails 1f~~ (although still fixable I believe with attribution). CCI checks on talk: I found very minor amounts of copying within Wikipedia when the structure of the article was being set up. I ran several Earwig checks on the diffs when bulk of text was added (Tom and Nilfanion), comparing the archive.org versions of the sources with the text as inserted (in the article before it was copyedited at FAC), and found no too-close paraphrasing or copyvio. I queried the CCI people on the talk page of the Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones as to whether this minor CWW needs to be noted on talk with a template. It looks pretty clean to me, but still learning the CCI ropes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing on talk, so while I found no problems prior to the FAC, unfortunately there has been unattributed copying within while the article has been at FAR. Yellow Evan, please read WP:CWW, in particular, the need for specific attribution in edit summary. Because that wasn't done, it is my understanding that the CCI people will have to add templates to the article talk page. Not an expert, I could be wrong on all of this, this is the first time I have done this kind of analysis. But please see WP:PATT, and be sure to add a hyperlink to the article name you are copying from in edit summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More on talk. Found at least one cut-and-paste inserted during the FAR, needs public domain attribution, too tired to look for the rest, but it needs to be done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: still waiting for CCI people to check my work. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I completed the CCI check here on talk, and have now added public domain attribution throughout and {{Copied}} templates for WP:CWW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis: - Would you be able to take a look at this again? Yellow Evan - I've tagged an uncited spot with a CN. Hog Farm _Talk 05:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That text was removed by DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the CCI work and believe the article is now 1f clear. Yellow Evan has not edited since December 3. @Chipmunkdavis and Hog Farm: how does this look to you now? If we aren't completely out of the woods yet, I will be entering a delist; we just can't do this much work on every WP:Cyclone article, particularly if the Project doesn't begin to do their own CCI cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The most glaring issues have been dealt with. I will say it doesn't feel up to the par of the other recently saved ones, but unfortunately do not have time to go into detail on comprehensiveness at the moment. CMD (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think all my major quibbles have been dealt with, although I don't have a whole lot of subject-specific knowledge here. Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since you two are not unhappy, I will do a full read-through in the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at other Season articles at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Seasons, ~~the lead here seems sparse.~~ “Despite the overall lack of activity,” contains no mention of season summary info from the body, like the La Niña effect.
I mention the no majors/storm total/hurricane total in the lead as is. The La Nina was only a projection from experts at the time and it actually didn't develop (I can't mention this in the article as there aren't any sources connecting the season activity to the lack of La Nina, or really anything). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now slightly expanded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward, complete rewrite would help: The most notable cyclones during the year were Hurricanes Ignacio and Marty, which both struck the Baja California Peninsula as hurricanes and killed 2 and 12 people across the country.
Now better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Since the lead is so short, why not name them? … Three other Pacific storms, two of which were hurricanes, and three Atlantic storms also had a direct impact on Mexico.~~
Now added, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~What does the “denoted in parentheses” refer to ?~~ The table of storms that formed in the 2003 Pacific hurricane season includes their duration, names, landfall(s), denoted in parentheses, damages, and death totals.
I re-wrote the lead so most of this is non-applicable. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still here, still don't understand what is denoted in parentheses: "The table of storms that formed in the 2003 Pacific hurricane season includes their duration, names, landfall(s), denoted in parentheses, damages, and death totals."
Oh, this stems from an older version of the season effects chart. Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~and all the damage figures are in 2003 USD.~~ … so why not just put that in the table heading?
I'll add a note. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incorrect dashes on date ranges in table,~~ eg May 19 – 25 … but since some other dates in the table do need a spaced endash, because they include Mon dd – Mon dd, why not make them all the same, for consistency?
Sorry but I'm a little confused. Do you want me to remove the endashes or no? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The dates in the table did not comply with MOS:DATERANGE. May 19 – 25 should be written May 19–25, or May 19 – May 25. There are two possibilities for fixing that: a) convert all dates to full Month day, year with a spaced endash (eg, August 28 – September 5), which would make the table consistent and conforming with MOS; or b) remove the spaces around the WP:ENDASH on those that occurred within the same month. If most of the hurricanes in that season had overlapped months, I would recommend option a. But only one did, so I instead implemented option b.[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is generic info~~ which differs from the actual dates (May 19 to October 26) in the Season effects table. The actual dates of this season seem more important for the lead than this generic info, which would seem to fit better in the Seasonal summary section. Either that, or rework the whole thing to include the actual storm dates (as in the table below) in the lead.
The season officially started on May 15, 2003, in the eastern Pacific Ocean, and on June 1, 2003, in the central Pacific, and lasted until November 30, 2003.[1] These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the northeastern Pacific Ocean.
This generic info is standard for all articles so I'm inclined to leave it in but I'm not sure if it's a good standard myself. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may be standard, but it still doesn't work :) It makes no sense to mention general info without also mentioning the specific to this season. I have added that.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that works really nicely. I'll use that sort of wording in the future, thank you! Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Colloquial~~ … The season saw 16 tropical storms form, of which 7 became hurricanes, which is about average. … how is about average different from average ? Higher, lower, what ?
The terms are interchangeable as "about" isn't a scientific term. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigged in same edit as above, [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~The flow in Seasonal forecasts is off,~~ and there is no need for it to read like backwards proseline. The first May forecast foresaw low activity due to La Niña, explain La Niña effect, then the June forecast.
I've reversed the order. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further tweaks: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Seasonal summary section has multiple instances of awkward or ungrammatical prose.~~
However, there were no major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale); this was the first time this had happened in the eastern Pacific since 1977, and is well below the long-term average of four. … no contradiction (remove however), and the second clause is ungrammatical. —> For the first season since 1977, there were no major hurricanes (Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale) in the eastern Pacific, where the long-term average is four hurricanes per season. … or something along those lines, although my version could be improved upon.
I removed the Category 3 bit since it's already mentioned in the first sentence but otherwise, done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked, [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Additionally, the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index~~ for the 2003 Pacific hurricane season was 53.4 units in the Eastern Pacific and 3.3 units in the Central Pacific. This value was within the top 10 least active seasons ever since reliable records began in 1971. … Also and additionally are almost always redundant— this one is. Top 10 ever is the same as top 10. —> The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) index for the 2003 Pacific hurricane season, at 53.4 units in the Eastern Pacific and 3.3 units in the Central Pacific, placed the season among the 10 least active since reliable records began in 1971. … and it needs an as of date (is this fact still true almost two decades later?)
Source is from 2020 and 2021 beat it out but sure. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked to reflect 2020: [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure 2021 will get automatically added pretty soon on that same link but this works for now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping there, as it is not necessary to read through each storm to see this is not FA-level prose. Unless someone steps up to rewrite the lead and perform a thorough copyedit, it may be time to let this one go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best but I'm still noticing issues anytime I touch this myself, and I'm not super happy with the prose as is. I do appreciate you and others efforts to at least try to keep this going, however. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 06:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some further copyediting tweaks, so that the top and bottom of the article are now passable, but I see prose issues in every storm section. If you want to continue attempting to improve, and to keep the FAR open, please say so, and we can ask someone like Z1720 if they might copyedit. Otherwise, the prose is still not at FA level, so my Delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~; the prose here is not at FA level, and I don’t see it getting there in the course of a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we’re within range now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ There are a lot of issues with this and a full rewrite would take more time than I would have. Noah^Talk 18:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delist~~ per above. Hog Farm _Talk 18:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:TropicalAnalystwx13 just did a large copyedit; TropicalAnalystwx13, what are your thoughts on FA status here? Is this saveable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I'm not experienced in writing FA-quality articles, I don't mind copyediting today and fixing some of the glaring prose issues I see. On its face, I think it should be salvageable unless there are some unknown issues lurking that I'm unaware of (something like missing impact information, which I haven't checked for yet). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TropicalAnalystwx13 please let this page know when you are done, and we can then re-ping reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia I think the storm sections are much more aligned with common standards now. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~The acronyms SSHWS is in every infobox, but never defined in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Done, [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC
~~Is this grammatical? "An area of disturbance weather ... " SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, could you take another look? TropicalAnalystwx13 has copyedited now; is there content covered in sources that is missing? Z1720 might you opine on the prose? If Z and Noah are happy, I would strike my Delist (and ping back Hog Farm as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll take a look at it. However, my body is reacting badly to the COVID booster and RL stuff is getting busy, so I might be delayed in getting to this. Please ping me if I don't comment within a week. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will look at the prose tomorrow after I get off work. Noah^Talk 23:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this should be included. Noah^Talk 23:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah, could you refine that a bit? Most of those returned by the search are either not 2003, or not Pacific, and the one that is 2003 Pacific is that journal that only summarizes the NOAA reports. Unfortunately, that search returns things published in 2003 even if they are not about the 2003 Pacific hurricane season. I’m not sure what else to look at among those search results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that journal summarizing the reports should be added. It has been expected for other season articles since it is academic literature. Noah^Talk 01:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That journal is nothing but reprints of the NOAA reports (something I discovered with my copyvio checks); best I can tell, it is not adding anything (sorry not to have discovered this sooner, but it turns up on every Earwig check as a duplicate of public domain sources, and the public domain NOAA sources are already freely available and fine).
Also, the idea that WP:WIAFA 1c requires academic or scholarly sources has taken hold at both FAC and FAR but the actual criterion is more nuanced than whether the information comes from a "journal"; the best sources vary by topic area, and a journal that does nothing but repeat public domain information cannot be higher quality than the sources it is merely repeating.
Is there something specific from there that should be included for the article to "neglect no major facts" (WIAFA 1b)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to this one specifically, but they usually contain general information about the season (ie records, landfalls, other info) that this could be used to source. Noah^Talk 02:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Said journal summarizing the reports doesn't add anything that isn't already mentioned in the article so there's no need to cite it. Normally, this journal article includes some reason for why the season was/wasn't inactive that isn't include elsewhere, but for some reason, this did not happen here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with YE here, having skimmed most of this article, there's not really much not in there, aside from a specification that Carlos affected 40+ communities, and a statement that the reason Igancio had so much rainfall was because it moved slow. I had look for missing coverage earlier in the FAR and had come to the conclusion that there just wasn't as much written about this season. Hog Farm _Talk 05:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then if this one doesn't include the normally-present extra material. I don't have access to these journals without going through someone else so I can't preview them beforehand. That was likely the only academic lit source that would have warranted inclusion so I think we are now fine in that regard. As I said yesterday, I will review the prose when I get off work today. Noah^Talk 11:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"storms of Category 3 intensity or higher on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale (SSHWS)" Needs to be sourced. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead? It is already sourced in the body; perhaps I'm missing something? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's never sourced in the body that a major hurricane is a Cat 3 storm. The only statement in the body is that there were no major hurricanes. Noah^Talk 23:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misunderstood; done.[10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"with the season ending on November 30" would clarify this is for both. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" which is an average season" should be was since the averages are different now. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"US$21 million in damages" Damage. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Hurricanes Olaf and Hurricanes Nora struck" delete the second hurricanes. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Hog Farm _Talk 23:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"La Niña conditions generally restrict tropical cyclone development in the Northeast Pacific, which is the opposite of its effect in the Atlantic.[3]" I feel like this would be better directly after the NOAA CPHC forecast. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Check for duplicate links. I will get to more later. Noah^Talk 23:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed quite a few, but also left some that I thought could be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"18:00 UTC on May 19 well to the south of Mexico" TCR for Andres gives a precise distance. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the location for Andres and all the others. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite increasing wind shear from an anticyclone causing the system's convection to become displaced from the circulation" The wind shear is mentioned as having disrupted the storm after the peak, causing Andres to fluctuate between 45-50 kt for a few days. The NHC actually mentioned the improved structure as the storm reached its peak. This statement is currently inaccurate as is. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, the NHC said banding improved, but that doesn't negate the circulation still being exposed. Nevertheless, I added the bit about the banding. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The remnant of Blanca " Should be remnants. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link to Puerto Ángel Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus, Carlos attained peak winds of 65 mph (100 km/h)" I would delete the bolded portion as it doesn't make sense here. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"which persisted until dissipating on June 29" I don't like the mixing of verb tenses. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the unit displays are jumbled. Some areas have metric first and others US units first. I would recommend it be US first since that is the standard. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Throughout its path, the storm affected about 148,000 people" Anything less vague then affected? Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a replacement source here, since this link is actually dead. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found this, which I'll replace. Also going to add information from this source for other sections. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The disturbance organized into Tropical Depression Four-E by 06:00 UTC on July 6 about 1,205 km (750 mi) to the south-southwest of Baja California Sur" Feel like there should be a comma after July 6. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The depression was designated a tropical depression " Probably meant disturbance was designated? Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the rest after the New Year's celebrations are over. Noah^Talk 00:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the rest for a hurricane person. Stay home, stay safe, don't get COVID out there :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 4000 homes is mentioned twice. Noah^Talk 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[11] Might be worth mentioning the 31 in of rain. Noah^Talk 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- An image, unfortunately, and I don't consider a rainfall total something significant to include in case where you are merely writing a summary. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article does mention the peak total of 3.75 in for Nora (and for several other storms). I feel an explanation as to how significant the rainfall was for Olaf in its comparison to Nora would be helpful since it left nearly 9X the amount that Nora did. You can cite images such as these with the cite map template. Noah^Talk 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dont see any other glaring prose issues. Noah^Talk

I think we are finally in Keep territory! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All significant issues are resolved. Noah^Talk 03:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at keep as well, I think. Hog Farm _Talk 15:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.