Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Hondo/archive1

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 Karanacs 14:59, 27 February 2009 [1].

Cyclone Hondo

Nominator(s): Cyclone biskit

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article. Although the Meteorological history section seems long, the storm was extremely long lived and strong, which requires more content to write on. The storm had minimal impact, only on two islands off the coast of Madagascar. To get this cleared away beforehand, I have look in both English and French sources for any more impact or preparations regarding Hondo but nothing else has shown up. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) Cyclone biskit 17:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - When i reviewed this article for GA Status earlier in the week, I could not find anything wrong with it per either the GA or the FA Critera. Jason Rees (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. talk:Ealdgyth - Talk 18:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth. Cyclone biskit 18:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Decent article, but I feel there are too many problems for this to be on FAC. One overall problem may be that it's too soon after the storm (less than one year isn't very long - the seasonal report isn't even out yet).
- First, the lede is far too long. Either split into two paragraphs, or shorten it.
- Second, its meteorological history is too long. Four paragraphs would be appropriate for a storm of that caliber. But even in that, there are still some uncertain details. What was its origin? Why did it move the way it did? That means both at first, and also later on in its duration. You say "started a gradual curving path", but I have no idea what that means. Why did it turn west-northwestward after the final advisory was issued? Was that expected?
- Did anything meteorologically happen before the JTWC's TCFA? The most important part of a storm's duration is how it first formed. You have a few sentences of rambling statistics without saying what the storm did.
- Try explaining the 1-min and 10-min thing a little better.
- How did it strength further, after the initial increase in wind shear?
- I see a lot of confusing details that need explanation.
  - However, it was not operationally classified as a disturbance for another two days - I think of a disturbance as an area of disturbed weather, and so might the reader. You don't say anything about the MFR classification system. Either it should be explained, or it should be removed. Keep in mind what is and isn't important for the reader to understand the storm.
  - significant strengthening was likely - this should be "considered likely". Mother nature doesn't believe in probabilities, so either it was likely to the agency, or those factors "favored significant strengthening".
  - At 0600 UTC, Météo-France classified the depression as a moderate tropical storm and was given the name Hondo;[7] a name submitted to the World Meteorological Organization by Zimbabwe - semicolon is not correctly used.
  - Ref 9 is from MFR, but you mention just "Category 1 hurricane". First, the SSHS is only for 1-min winds, and second, you don't even mention what "Category 1" is.
  - Can you shorten the end of the 3rd paragraph? It's really long and rambling.
  - "two subtropical highs" - for this sentence, you link subtropical, but subtropical highs have nothing at all to do with subtropical cyclones. Please fix.
  - Did MFR adjust the track/strength of Hondo in post-analysis while it was near Reunion?
  - For preps/impact, please either split, or re-organize to keep info together for similar areas. You go from preps in Reunion to Madagascar, then back to Reunion.
  - Lastly, you say "Up to 760,000 people were affected on Réunion". That's a pretty foolish thing to say, since the source only says 760,000 is the population of Reunion. It seems unlikely every person on the island was affected. Either explain or, ideally, get rid of it. Don't try and over-compensate for lack of information.
♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note- After a brief off-wiki discussion with Hurricanehink concerning his comments, I've decided to withdraw this nomination. Cyclone biskit 03:49, 27 February 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.