Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pacific hurricanes/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates | List of Pacific hurricanes
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 20:51, 23 February 2008.

List of Pacific hurricanes

edit

During the wind-down of 2007, I expanded and greatly improved this article by filling out missing info, adding pictures, and referencing it. For example, before I started, it had no references. Now it has over 100 inline cites. I also put it on peer review, but there were no comments other than the automated stuff. Hence, I feel that this list is now ready for featurehood. That's why I nominating it. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - the writing could use a little copyedit. Those two things - thing is one of those words that should be avoided. On average, the eastern north Pacific sees an average of - redundancy. I'd like if the units in the rainfall section had some consistency in units. IMO, if the original source was XX.XX, that is, four significant digits, then the converted units should also have 4 significant digits. The station for Hurricane Kathleen and Tropical Storm Norma is a redlink, but it doesn't specify what state. For tables that cite Hurdat, I'd like if there was merely a column that said Source: Eastern Pacific Best Track<ref>hurdat</ref>, as that would help cut down on how many times it is cited. Just a little tidbit - the "earliest storm forming by number" says "only storms forming... NHC, EPHC, and United States Fleet Weather Central". However, there were no storms on that list prior to 1970, which is when the United States Fleet Weather Central operated. Was that intentional including it? Also, the section on "Earliest system by Category" includes some of the latest storms; either the title should be changed or the latest storms should be moved elsewhere. Adolph in 2001 needs a pressure. In the "Listed by intensity" - should Ava and Ioke be tied? I think "Greatest Duration" should have a mention that John 94 had the longest duration worldwide. Do off-season storms only include storms that form in that basin? If not, then Carmen in 1980 should be included in the Central Pacific, as it was included in the strongest storms by month section. In the damages section - "$84 million (198 USD) in damage". Which year was it? All in all, it's mostly minor things that need fixing up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have followed your suggestions. Also, the senmtence about the forecasters was supposed to make it clear that systems moving in from elsewhere are not included. Since you interpreted that sentence completely differently than intended, I have made that more explicit. And yes, off-season storms only include those that form in the basin. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support now, but there's still a few other things. How come Costliest Eastern Pacific hurricanes adjusted to 2005 USD is not in 2007 USD? Given that Unisys gets their data from HURDAT, I'd rather cite the best track, rather than using Unisys. I have a slight qualm that Carmen is counted as a CPAC system (in the pressure section), but it is not included in the off-season storms section. A few aspects were still unaddressed. First, shouldn't Ava and Ioke be tied, since they both had a pressure of 915 mbar? I'd like a mention of John in the "greatest duration" section, given that it was the longest-lasting cyclone worldwide, which is pretty notable. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose because it just looks and feels extremely disjointed, like a list of facts thrown at a wall and presented in the order they fell down in. I'm not quite sure how best to remedy it, but I do think it needs it. There's a lot of small tables here separated by small bits of text, with different styles and formats throughout. It just looks a bit sloppy IMO. --Golbez (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the headings were originally based on those in List of Atlantic hurricanes, I have added another level of headings and reordered sections into what I hope are more logical groups, eg all location sections are under one heading now. The small bits of text provide context for the following tables. For example, the bit of text before the off-season storms sections provides info about why those systems are out of season; namely, when hurricane season is. It's unreasonable to expect someone bumping their way through the encyclopedia to know out of the blue when hurricane season is. Without that bit of text, readers may have difficulty knowing why the out of season storms are out of season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. There are a few issues here, I can't help but feel.
    • There's probably a reasonable answer for this - but why is the article called the "List of Pacific hurricanes" when it's actually about notable ones only? Have you considered renaming it?
    • Shouldn't the caption to the lead image end in a full stop, seeing as it comprises a complete sentence?
    • I personally don't much like using the Retired Pacific hurricanes template in-line with text; it's kinda cool to be able to, but just seems lazy. The article is over-run with tables, and some prose might help tidy it up.
    • "These killed 100 or more people." - maybe this should be "the following storms" or something, something a little nicer on the ear.
    • Surely it would be sensible to make the vast majority of tables sortable, or at least the pertinent columns sortable?
    • For sections like "Seasonal activity and records", it might look nice to centrally align some of the cells in the tables.
    • "Except for a one system,[36], tropical cyclones" - what's going on here?
    • The first paragraph in "Named named storms per month" is exactly the same as one in "Seasonal activity and records#Lowest". That's just criminal!
    • "Earliest and latest systems by Category" - any reason you capitalise "category"? I'm sure there is, to be honest.
    • As for the "Earliest and latest systems by Category" tables, WP:MOS says you should fully link the dates. Also, why not merge the rows for each storm?
    • There's a "catehory" to be found.

Gawd, I don't have time to read on. This article's a behemoth. I can't even comment on the content, seeing as I know nothing on the subject, but style-wise it still needs beautifying and tweaking. Seegoon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • See either talk:List of Atlantic hurricanes, talk:List of Pacific hurricanes, or talk:list of tropical cyclones for the reason. Basically, it was because "notable" is subjective.
    • The caption has been changed.
    • The sentence has been rewritten.
    • Which cells?
    • The offending sentence has been reqritten to indicate that one system in the best-track during the period in question had a name (C) while the rest don't.
    • The paragraphs are the same because they provide necessary context to enable readers to know why the tables are the way they are. Is it really necessary to vary the expression of the same information just for the sake of doing so?
    • "Category" is capitalized because it is being used as a proper noun. See for example the NHC's FAQ. I have changed the heading and rewritten part of the paragraohs to make it clearer why "Category" is a proper noun.
    • Years are now linked.
    • Spelling corrected.
Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:06, 9 February 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_list_candidates/List_of_Pacific_hurricanes/archive1&oldid=193566296"