Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 by Matthewedwards 06:02, 31 July 2009 [1].

Timeline of the 1987 Atlantic hurricane season edit

Nominators: Cyclonebiskit (talk) and Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets all FL criteria. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure - Im a particpant in the Amazing Race Wikipedia. Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Truco
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
General
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links check out fine.
Lead
  • The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season that resulted in little impact throughout the Atlantic basin; the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities, making the 1987 season the fourth to do so since 1967. -- 1)Is the pipelink at Atlantic basic correct, wouldn't it be better if it were piped to the Atlantic ocean or something along those lines? 2)Did the US record no fatalities in the entire Atlantic area or just the US?
The piped link is correct, the Atlantic basin refers to the Atlantic north of the equator and as for the second point, I'm not sure what you're trying to ask. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm asking whether the sentence is stating that the United States recorded no fatalities in the United States or in the Atlantic area itself like all the countries in the Atlantic?--Truco 503 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the United States, not any other country. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay.--Truco 503 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The timeline includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. -- 1)In addition the the strike-through, change the first The -> This
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms—an average season has ten tropical storms—three became hurricanes and one, Emily, became a major hurricane, i.e. those that rank as Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. -- I think this would read better if it were split into two sentences, and I would remove the i.e. and format what follows with the emdash like you did at the beginning.
That sentence has always been kept as a single sentence, I just removed to i.e part, is that OK? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would read better IMO if the comma between hurricane and those was replaced with an emdash.--Truco 503 03:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline
  • A lot of use of roughly, use synonyms.
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Emily further intensifies into a Category Two hurricane.
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tropical Storm Emily re-intensifies into a hurricane while located about 235 mi (380 km) southwest of Bermuda]]. -- Were you trying to link Bermuda?
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tropical Storm Floyd makes landfall in extreme western Cuba near Guane. -- extreme?
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Floyd tracks over the Florida Keys with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h). -- I don't see a need for the overlink of Florida Keys here
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • There is an inconsistency with the linking of the publishers.--Truco 503 15:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Previous issues resolved/clarified; list now meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 16:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)
Comment A couple of the images need alternative text per criterion 5b. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doing –Juliancolton | Talk 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
done where it's feasible. It's surprisingly hard to describe satellite images ("A big, spinny thing over water. The clouds are white."?) –Juliancolton | Talk 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JC Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mostly referring to the track maps. :) Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

  • The first sentence conflicts with the main article, which claims that the season was average.
Fixed the main article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "led to the season starting"-->led to the season's starting
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "information which was not operationally released"-->information that was not operationally released
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This season had 14 tropical depressions of which only seven intensified into tropical storms" Comma after "depressions", remove "only", and make the numbers either both words or both numerals.
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an average season has ten tropical storms" Is there a source for this?
Sourced Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usage of all three em dashes is awkward. I'd recommend putting some material in parentheses or perhaps a footnote.
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spent 14.5 days as a tropical storm" So, exactly 14 days and 12 hours?
Specified it was roughly that length Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big concern, but it would be nice if the inline citations were in numerical order (example: Tropical Depression Five tracks over the southern Cape Verde Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h).[9][7]). I know there's a script for this, but I can't recall which one. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
Comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs)
  • Might be my bad grammar or a Br/AmEng thing but shouldn't led to the season's starting on May 25 be "led to the season starting..."
  • Should of the seasons storms be "of the season's storms"
  • Three fatalities occurred, I'm guessing in the Dom. Rep. because you open with the United States recorded no hurricane-related fatalities but you should clarify if this is the case.
  • Isn't the timeline usually linked to the individual hurricane/storms (à la Timeline of the 1982 Atlantic hurricane season)
  • Timeline should use ndashes for wind speed ranges too.
  • Timeline seems to have a something after "209" and before "km/h" which shouldn't be there.

Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/More Comments

I was about to support and then thought I should just randomly check facts were verifiable. The first think I checked wasn't correct which concerned me, and digging deeper I found more problems.
  • Three fatalities occurred in the Dominican Republic due to the storm and damages amounted to $80.3 million. Okay unrelated to the verifiability this sounds like all the monetary damage was only in the Dominican Republic.
  • Checking refs [1][4] on the above statement, [4] says it caused estimated $30m in Dom. Rep., and initial estimate of $35m in Bermuda, with no mention of the 15.3m difference. [1] on p946 says damages were over $75m of which estimates as high as $25m in Dom. Rep. and upto $50m in Bermuda, so where you get $80.3m from seems like complete synthesis. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't make any numbers up, I chose the most commonly used ones in reports, $50 million in Bermuda, $30 million in the Dom. Rep. and $300,000 in the Lesser Antilles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You provide 2 references, so it can't be the most commonly used, as neither have coinciding figures. Also I can't find that $300k for Lesser Antilles in either ref. If you are taking the highest estimates, that is fine but I think you should say so. e.g. "and damages estimated as high as $whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref you added says "For Hurricane Emily, the amount was $191,000", also where do you get your 2009 conversion from. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ive updated the template to 2009 figures and referenced the inflation calculator in the timeline Jason Rees (talk) 01:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citations values still only give $80.191m at most, so you still have a discrepancy, if this is changed please also update the 2009 value. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, it gives $80.291 million, since the two Lesser Antilles sources are for separate islands. I just rounded it up to $80.3 so it's easier on the eyes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really understand led to the season's starting on May 25, you have said that the season starts on June 1, and the annual season summary (ref 1), makes no mention of TD1, making me think that the season didn't start early and it was just an off-season storm.
  • The depression marked the beginning of the season, a few days before the official start. Also, unless the depression caused significant damage (like Fourteen) it's not included in the annual summary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a bit confused by ref 2 as the text didn't mention ten tropical storms, however I guess you are getting your average from this, because reading up on it, I gather that tropical storms are when names are first assigned to systems, hence "named systems" curve being about 10. If this is the case I recommend directly referencing the gif.
  • If you look right below the image you're talking about there is a table with the average number of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where on earth do you get location names from? The 24 May storm is only sourced by lots of numbers (ref 4). I'm struggling to see how you get times, locations, distances from these numbers.
  • Once you have latitude and longitude stats, the distance in relation to other locations is easy to calculate. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now think I understand the times. I'm guessing the four unheaded column blocks are 0000, 0600, 1200, 1800 in the day. But I'm still interested to know how and when you choose to insert locations (is it just what is near the coords), and (I might be being thick), but I'd have thought the distance calculations involve spherical coordinates which doesn't sound easy to me. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used the nearest locations to the respective coordinates using Google Earth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay I'm getting the prelim reports to work, but I can't get the ftp one to work. For example I was trying to check 8:00 pm AST (0000 UTC August 14) – Tropical Depression Four forms about 840 mi (1,350 km) east-southeast of Barbados.[6] The coordinates 155 540 from that ftp source seem to put me north-east of Barbados, or am I misunderstanding those coords. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 150 540 = 15.0N 54.0W, that gives you a location east-southeast of Barbados. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done this on Google Earth and it puts me ENE of Bermuda with a completely different distance figure. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try looking at the line above that one, the coordinate you're talking about is on the second line for the depression's track. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay the coord above that (140 540) gives your direction of ESE, but I get it to be almost half the distance away from Barbados. Also wouldn't that be at a different time or do the ftp columns not correspond with UTC times? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're in UTC format but in the timeline I used local time zones also, if UTC goes into the next day, I put that date in the same parenthesis as the UTC time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No I meant the column/row combination of the coordinate you directed me to doesn't seem to coincide with the time you list in the timeline. There is also still the difference in our calculations for distance (and not a minor difference). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This concern follows through to other systems, which seem to have a similar data file. Most of them are backed up with a second ref (in the case of TD2 ref 8). This gives the times, but are you working out locations from coordinates and are you roughly approximating winds speed from knots, e.g. 40 kt -> 46.03 mph ~ 45 mph and 25 kt -> 28.76 mph ~ 30 mph. Also how are you knowing when they "make landfall", estimating from co-ords again?
  • I'm not sure what you mean here. Winds, coordinates, and landfall times are all covered in the preliminary reports such as the one you linked to. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I'm misunderstanding here. Winds: are approximations from converting knots into mph & km? The point about landfall times, is that all times are given in 6 hr intervals. Do you look at the co-ords for each time and see which is the first set of co-ords to be over land. Also, couldn't these storm have hit land, for example, five-and-a-half hours (i.e. <6) before a storm's first lot of co-ords are over land? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surprisingly enough, many of the landfalls were at the six hour points, for storms that didn't make landfall at that mark and were not included in the MWR, I put exact time unknown. As for the wind speeds, it's knots converted to mph to the nearest five, same for km/h. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise quite a few of hurricane timelines have got through before, but this is the first one I've reviewed and I consider all these things as legitimate (possibly serious) concerns. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it has any bearing to this discussion, the National Hurricane Center also rounds to the nearest 5 unit (mph, or km/h) as evidenced by this: [2] --Anhamirak 00:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All RSMCs and TCWCs do that btw.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I'm now off wiki so I won't be able to stike any outstanding comments I have. I trust that the FL directors/delegate will consider my remaining concerns, check if they have been resolved and in-/exclude as appropriate when the candidacy is closed. Sorry for the inconvenience and good luck, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid the use of (current) reference 7 is very troubling. It means absolutely nothing to just about anyone, I would imagine. The references we use, along with supporting text if needed, should be able to be accessible to the general public and right now, that swathe of numbers is anything but. Is there a way in which alternative references (which are human-readable) could be used, or is there any kind of explanation that could be offered as to how someone with zero understanding (e.g. me) of this reference can go from those numbers to, say, "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)."? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no alternative reference for Tropical Depressions as they are never included in the Best Track folder of the season produced by the RSMC/TCWC's. But i have found a guide to hurdat here but i think its better if i explain it in my own words.

We will use Tropical Depression 14 Tracks as an Example

11530 TD - Strength on SSHS
11540 10/31/1987 M= 5 7 SNBR= 184 XING=0 - Card number, Date of formation, the number of days the storm was above Tropical Disturbance strength for.
                         0000UTC            0600UTC             1200UTC           1800UTC
Card No. Date. LONG(N) LAT(W) Wind
11550 10/31* 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0*165 775 30 0*
11560 11/ 1* 175 785 30 0*184 793 30 0*195 799 30 0*201 803 30 0*
11570 11/ 2* 203 805 25 0*207 808 25 0*211 811 25 0*214 814 25 0*
11580 11/ 3* 223 818 25 0*232 822 25 0*240 829 25 0*249 836 25 0*
11590 11/ 4* 257 839 25 0*267 835 25 0*275 830 20 0*285 820 20 0*
11600 TD
The winds are in knots - I hope this helps. Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It makes a little more sense now, but as you can see, this source will need explanation to a non-expert otherwise, in my opinion, it isn't really a useful source. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If i remember correctly there was some talk about making an article on Hurdat a while back, i dont know what happened to it though.Jason Rees (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the reference needs to be explained as it's simplest form is used in the article. We've never had an issue with using HURDAT before, this is the same format but a different file, it has depressions instead of named storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Rambo's Revenge pointed out above, sure several of these lists have gone by with similar references, but it was down to his diligence that we've uncovered a reference that is effectively meaningless to 99.999% of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does the readers understanding of a reference have to do with the actual article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If the vast majority of readers cannot understand the information and thus verify that the information is correct, what use is the reference? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. And what would be the point of a reference that no-one could understand, especially one which is used to derive other information using undefined techniques? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because otherwise we could not be comprenshive and cover all the depressions - I dont know if there is a way of citing that guide to Hurdat, which is located on their website.Jason Rees (talk) 15:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is we're not comprehensive, even now, as it's impossible to determine how you get from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we are because we type the position into Google earth or watever and that tells us weather its passed over the Berry Islands. Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Obviously, this requires a WikiProject-wide discussion. One idea is to create a reader-friendly guide to the source, much as Template:Railway line legend is used for railway line diagrams. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how we would go about doing that though.Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My 2 cents on the whole "source is too complicated" issue. I personally think you're way off here, we strive to make the wikipedia articles accessible, not something you need to be an expert to understand. But the same cannot be said about the sources, if there is the need for an "expert source" that may be hard to understand for people in general well that's unfortunate for the people reading the article but I don't see it as something to be held against the article. Next we'll be saying that printed sources are unacceptable because the reader cannot immediately verify content themselves. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. The printed source is still accessible somewhere. And the printed source should immediately be able to verify the claim in the article. In this case we have absolutely NO way of getting from that swathe of numbers to "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)". It is impossible for anyone other than the author of the list to verify the claims using this reference. That makes the claims unverifiable. Which means I believe the reference is inappropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there is nothing wrong with printed sources. Many times, they are more reliable than web sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is someone working on an article all about hurdat and i believe his intention is too put a guide in with it. Also we can go from that swathe of numbers to saying that "Tropical Depression One passes over the Berry Islands with winds of 35 mph (55 km/h)" by plotting the postion on a map. and converting the knots to MPH/K/MHJason Rees (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can do that because you know exactly what you're doing. How does an average reader verify what you're claiming? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By plotting the postion on a map - or using the guide thats provided by NOAA or even the trackmap that was made using the data for the season article. Jason Rees (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not being clear. From this timeline list, and that reference, how does a reader know how to get from your list of numbers to a location and a windspeed on a map? Is it explained within this list exactly how to do this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im sure most readers are intellegent enough to say oh thats a location thats a date etc if theyre not then they can use the guide thats located on the same website.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're assuming far too much. I looked at that list of numbers, saw no sign of any guidance whatsoever, and no indication of what consitituted a location, a windspeed, etc. It simply is not accessible to a regular reader and as far as I'm concerned, impossible to verify the information you've derived from it without extensive notes. Perhaps one solution is to cite each set of relevant numbers, then explain in each citation what they mean and how they relate to your derived text. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is [3], which serves as a viewer of HURDAT data, but it doesn't produce referenceable URLs, so I'm not sure what to do about that one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm trying to decipher the main concern here, as I see Rambo's comments were resolved IMO about the sourcing and now its about a key explaining some of the terms, or what am I missing?--Truco 503 15:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- How about we use easy HURDAT for the Atlantic? See here: [4] --Anhamirak 17:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We cant it doesnt include depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised that HURDAT or HURDAT-like references has never come up before during FAC. The reviewer is right...unless there's a guide, the layperson won't know how to interpret it. How many articles do we have which source HURDAT at FA status? Dozens? I agree that the creation of the HURDAT article would explain away the issue. Who's writing it, out of curiosity? And if this is needed to get this article to FA, it should be posted as a wikipedia article NOW if it's in a sandbox, regardless of its class. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its Seddon whos working on it - I will see if i can get in contact with him somehow. Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to contact him and he agreed to its publication and so ive added a guide and published it Jason Rees (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know that I said otherwise, but as the guidelines on alt text have developed, it turns out we need alt text for every image. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - "Category One" should be "Category 1". Same goes for "Category Two", etc. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Jason Rees (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been closed as a failed nomination, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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/Timeline_of_the_1987_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1208327248"