Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Gamede/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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:SandyGeorgia 17:18, 4 June 2008 [1].
After passing a GA nomination and A-class review, I nominate this article for featured status, since I believe it passes all of the criteria. It has been copyedited and looked over a few times, and if anything was missed, I'll be happy to get it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Ooh! Australian sources! Whee!
What makes http://australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/index.html a relaible source?Is Le Mauricien a newspaper? Where is it?
- Otherwise links check out fine with the tool, sources look fine. I think this is the one I get to skip doing a full review on, right? I just reviewed Tropical Depression Ten... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the Australia Severe Weather reference: it is a public mirror of mailing list posts by Gary Padgett, who is considered an authority in tropical cyclone studies worldwide. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, you can skip fully reviewing this one ;) I'm not sure if Le Mauricien is a newspaper, but it is a news agency, and here is their website. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets be good kids and see some links showing he's well respected? That way I can put his site on my list of "all proven" sites and we won't have to request it again, when I see another cyclone article (which I know I will). I should have taken up storm articles, they definitely work up quicker than bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in a previous FAC, he is cited in various NOAA publications ([2][3]). If they are good enough for NOAA, they should be good enough for WP. Yea, TC's are easy to write about, since they don't usually cause conflict, but there's always a ton of info on them. The choice is yours whether or not to come to the dark side of WP. WPTC: disrupting FXC processes with endless successful candidates since 2006. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me, on the source that is. TC's, I think I'll leave alone. I did enough worrying about them in 20 years in Houston, I am just as happy to get away from the coast! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I mentioned in a previous FAC, he is cited in various NOAA publications ([2][3]). If they are good enough for NOAA, they should be good enough for WP. Yea, TC's are easy to write about, since they don't usually cause conflict, but there's always a ton of info on them. The choice is yours whether or not to come to the dark side of WP. WPTC: disrupting FXC processes with endless successful candidates since 2006. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets be good kids and see some links showing he's well respected? That way I can put his site on my list of "all proven" sites and we won't have to request it again, when I see another cyclone article (which I know I will). I should have taken up storm articles, they definitely work up quicker than bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Tropical Cyclone Hyacinthe" (in lead) no wlinks?
- "with the JTWC classifying it with winds" - what's JTWC?
- "upwelling; upwelling is the process..." - it'd read better if the word wasn't repeated
- "again underwent weakening" --> "again weakened"?
Generally a great read, couldn't find much. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 13:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the link to Hyacinthe, and fixed JTWC (I meant to add the acronym after its first usage). I changed the second upwelling to this, which avoids the redundancy. Fixed the redundancy with weakening. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good prose, layout, fully referenced. However, I think you should de-link the dates if they do not include the year. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe I should change the dates. User preference will automatically change the date to the American or UK style of dating, so May 24 will show up for me as May 24, but for another as 24 May. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one comment. In the sentence, After being named, Gamede quickly intensified, with the JTWC classifying it with winds of 120 mph (75 km/h) early on February 22, per MoS, "with" is generally not a good connecting word. Otherwise, the prose is excellent. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Since I come from the French Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not I have the right to vote. By the way, I'd like to say that this nomination comes too early, by far. The article would be in a much longer and better state if only French sources had been used. Since Gamede stroke Réunion, there are many of them available on the Internet, and they should be dealt with. For the moment, the description of key events is kept within a sentence whereas it should be detailed in many paragraphs. I am thinking about the airbridge that had to be set up by the French army between Roland Garros Airport and Pierrefonds Airport. An unprecedented event in the history of France, it is unheard of in the current version. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, I don't know French at all. I wouldn't know what to look for, and how to find it. If only French sources had been used, yes, it probably could be longer. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and I relied heavily on English sources (including a thorough check in a news archive via Lexis-Nexis). This article is comprehensive via English sources, but it's tricky, since the comprehensive criterion says nothing about foreign language sources, though obviously they are acceptable. For myself, this comment is unactionable, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed for you to add the important missing information (which I could integrate into the rest of the article). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A reliable source is a reliable source. Le Monde is no different to the New York Times. For en.wp English sources are preferred, but if the French sources contain significant information that is not available in English ones, that information will have to come from those French language sources and the article would fail 1(b) without that info. The article should not use "only" French, but wanting information from French language sources (the airbridge reference is an example) is actionable - you cannot ignore sources in other languages just because you can't read them! Btw, search engines translation tools are typically "good enough" to determine if there is useful info in an webpage, even if someone would need to translate properly for use in an article.---Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose. You can have a look at www.temoignages.re and www.lexpress.mu for local sources with free articles. Yet, I doubt that you will be able to provide a comprehensive synthesis if you don't speak any French, as there are many subtles things that you should take care of in the process. For instance, if you want to fully understand the impact the cyclone had in national media in France, you have to take count of the chikungunya massive outbreak earlier in the region. And if you want to be precise, you'll need articles such as Rivière Saint-Étienne and so on. Thus, I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. I can deal with the first two steps if you want, but only after September. For the moment, I strongly oppose. Cyclone Gamede may be a Good article, but I definitely think it cannot be a featured one. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Le Mauricien is a newspaper, indeed. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through some French sources (as well as the French article), and I don't see any significant pieces of information that is not covered in the article (I added a few pieces of info from a few sources I found). I disagree with I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. An FA on a topic outside of the English-speaking world can certainly be completed by an English writer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, but that is not what matters here. The debate is whether or not the article should be featured. And I think it should not, due to the failure to provide important pieces of information about how the authorities reacted to the cyclone, how they dealt with its aftermath, how the media covered the event and what was its social and political impact on the islands. For example, François Baroin and Pierre-Henry Maccioni are not spoken about. Consequently, the article is three to four times shorter than it should be, with the French version not being a standard either. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thierry Caro, Hurricanehink indicated that he searched through French sources and found no more than small facts. Thus, the article is comprehensive, and therefore meets the FA criterion. Also, the length of an article is not grounds for opposing. I honestly don't see how the article could be expanded three to four times its current size. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not prone to calling comprehensive an article about a cyclone that would ignore important facts the press has echoed and that would thus describe the meteorological event without dealing with its social impact. Ministerial visits and national media coverage are not details that can be bypassed. In a sense, I oppose the nomination because of the very criteria you refer to. Plus, I miss the contextualization that is often found elsewhere and that generally comes with well-written featured articles. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I suppose you are right. It wouldn't deserve to be featured if there is indeed that much information missing. I'm withdrawing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not prone to calling comprehensive an article about a cyclone that would ignore important facts the press has echoed and that would thus describe the meteorological event without dealing with its social impact. Ministerial visits and national media coverage are not details that can be bypassed. In a sense, I oppose the nomination because of the very criteria you refer to. Plus, I miss the contextualization that is often found elsewhere and that generally comes with well-written featured articles. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thierry Caro, Hurricanehink indicated that he searched through French sources and found no more than small facts. Thus, the article is comprehensive, and therefore meets the FA criterion. Also, the length of an article is not grounds for opposing. I honestly don't see how the article could be expanded three to four times its current size. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, but that is not what matters here. The debate is whether or not the article should be featured. And I think it should not, due to the failure to provide important pieces of information about how the authorities reacted to the cyclone, how they dealt with its aftermath, how the media covered the event and what was its social and political impact on the islands. For example, François Baroin and Pierre-Henry Maccioni are not spoken about. Consequently, the article is three to four times shorter than it should be, with the French version not being a standard either. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through some French sources (as well as the French article), and I don't see any significant pieces of information that is not covered in the article (I added a few pieces of info from a few sources I found). I disagree with I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. An FA on a topic outside of the English-speaking world can certainly be completed by an English writer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A reliable source is a reliable source. Le Monde is no different to the New York Times. For en.wp English sources are preferred, but if the French sources contain significant information that is not available in English ones, that information will have to come from those French language sources and the article would fail 1(b) without that info. The article should not use "only" French, but wanting information from French language sources (the airbridge reference is an example) is actionable - you cannot ignore sources in other languages just because you can't read them! Btw, search engines translation tools are typically "good enough" to determine if there is useful info in an webpage, even if someone would need to translate properly for use in an article.---Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll archive; please leave the fac template on the page until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 4 June 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.