Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Andrew/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 Dabomb87 03:29, 3 July 2010 [1].
Hurricane Andrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Qao-bou (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it's comprehensive, with plenty of detailed information on the actual storm, preparations for it, impact for each area affected, and aftermath of the hurricane. It is completely cited with under cite web formatting. In my biased opinion, I feel this article is ready to become the next Featured Article. Support. ... Qao-bou (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Was the primary contributor, Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), consulted before the nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to, I will inform him of the nomination shortly. Qao-bou (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary contributor consulted. Qao-bou (talk) 23:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Consulted or not, I don't particularly support someone who's edited the article twice (and only to further reading section I may point out) to nominate the FAC. He did not tag the talk page as usual, see its talk page. This is a delisted GA, and I think should really get a full out look over to meet project standards before becoming back here. Also:
- "Rainfall was limited in Southeast Florida because of Andrew traveling through at fast speeds (between 20 and 25 mph forward speed)." is unsourced.
- " By 1992 the demographics of central and south Florida had changed, with many residents relocated from areas in the Northeastern United States and Upper Midwest. Thus a significant portion of the Floridian population in 1992 had little or no direct experience of Florida's history of violent hurricanes, a fact that worried many forecasters at the time." - unsourced.
- The Louisiana section is poorly put together, lots of broken paragraphs.
- "Nearly one million residences were no longer eligible for coverage by any insurance agency. This led the Florida Legislature to create new agencies (the Joint Underwriting Association, the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund) to restore adequate insurance coverage." -unsourced
- "Andrew's catastrophic damage spawned many rumors, including claims that hundreds or even thousands of migrant farm workers in south Dade County (now Miami-Dade County) were killed and their deaths were not reported in official accounts. An investigation by the Miami Herald found no basis for such rumors. These rumors were probably based on the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, when the deaths of migrant workers initially went uncounted, and were still debated at the time of Andrew." - unsourced
- Florida in aftermath is cluttered to death, with maligned tables and photos. It also has a major
- "The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station was hit directly by Andrew. Over $90 million of damage was done, largely to a water tank and to a smokestack of one of the fossil-fueled units on-site, but the containment buildings were undamaged. The nuclear plant was built to withstand winds of up to 235 mph." - unsourced
- Article deserves an all-over copyedit and scan.
- Is background necesssary? We don't even use it mostly for Katrina. Andrew shouldn't be any different.
In all, this is a small list of my qualms with this article and I feel this was VERY premature. Mitch32(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommend withdraw, the article is simply not ready. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Recommendation, Denied!. Qao-bou (talk) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that isn't a very polite way to respond to a good-faith and indeed very accurate suggestion. I'm sure all WPTC editors appreciate your interest in this article, but it simply is not complete on the level that one of the most important tropical cyclones in history should be. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I also recommend withdrawing. I agree with JC, it's not complete or good enough for one of the most important hurricanes in history. However, if you want to work to get it up to par, I'd be happy to work with you, so long as we're not using the valuable resources of FAC while the article is under construction. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, that isn't a very polite way to respond to a good-faith and indeed very accurate suggestion. I'm sure all WPTC editors appreciate your interest in this article, but it simply is not complete on the level that one of the most important tropical cyclones in history should be. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.