Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Andrew/archive2

Add links
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 GrahamColm 10:06, 10 August 2012 [1].

Hurricane Andrew

[edit]

Hurricane Andrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming in August 2012, it will have been 20 years since one of the worst tropical cyclones on record in U.S. history. As the 20th anniversary of this storm was rapidly approaching, I went on a quest to improve it to reach FA, with the hopes of it being a TFA on August 24, 2012. After spending countless hours, days, and month on the sandbox for the article, it was moved to the mainspace in place of the original Andrew article. Today, after more than 9 years after its creation [2], I think it is finally ready to become a Feature Article, because, in my biased opinion, appears to among the best quality on Wikipedia. Agree? Disagree? Please comment in the space below. Finally, this is a nomination for 100 points in the WikiCup.--12george1 (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aftermath is a bit skimpy.
    • " In Washington D.C., President Bush proposed a $7.1 billion (1992 USD) disaster aid package to provide disaster benefits, small-business loans, crop losses, food stamps, and public housing for victims of Hurricane Andrew. However, the United States House of Representatives considered allotting a bill costing $1.8 billion (1992 USD) more than Bush's proposal."
  • Those are both just proposals, but it doesn't say whether either of them happened or not. That is my biggest beef with the article, but shouldn't be too difficult to fix. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand what you are asking me to do.--12george1 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't ask, it was more of a comment, how the aftermath's extent of federal government actions is two bill proposals. Could you find some more concrete stuff of what happened? I'm mostly just leery about the words "proposed" and "considered", since nothing, at least based on how it reads, actually happened from those bills. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why hasn't this article completed a GA nomination and review first? If it had, it would have eliminated a number of the issues brought up above. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Suggest a prose check so that the prose is the best possible, since this is a FA candidate. e.g. The word "however" is used three times in the first paragraph, twice in adjacent sentences. It's used 10 times in the entire article. Seems like all, or almost all "however"s could be removed. MathewTownsend (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – People are going to eat me for this, but since day 1 of this FAC, I've thought its being rushed for something that may not even happen. (25 has more chances than 20 anyway in my book.) I feel like this FAC should be withdrawn and brought though the project and for that matter GAN. B->FAC is rare nowadays and unlikely. If I did that, I'd be eaten alive. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 19:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, how is that actionable? There is nothing on WP:WIAFA that requires that articles should have GANs filled out before FACs. While GAN provides a useful extra pair of eyes on the page, it would be a pointless process for articles that are ready for FAC when they are published (or in this case, when an FAC is trying to get an anniversary TFA). Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actionable in the theory that this FAC should be withdrawn. I don't like the idea that we should just have gone from B to FAC on the late 20th century's most notable hurricane, just for an award that might not even happen.Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 17:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But you have not identified anything that is actually wrong with the article, which is what an oppose requires to be actionable. Withdrawing the FAC simply to ensure it has a GAN before it goes to FAC is a pointless bureaucratic exercise. There is no requirement that articles go through GAN, PR, A-Class Review, or any other WikiProject verification process before going to FAC. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Citation 62 has Center written in British form, and overall, a lot of the citation formatting for the NHC seems inconsistent. I know some probably are using cite report, but I am getting confused reading some of this formatting. Mitch32(There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 22:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, feel this has been rushed. The article is built as if it covered a typical land-impacting storm, and feels exceptionally dry for one of the top-two most severe US hurricanes in recent history. The article is based on two types of sources: government documents and a handful of newspaper articles. The lack of rich detail and qualitative accounts from the many books, hundreds of journal articles, and even contemporary accounts is glaring; the Martian who's just stumbled on the article has no idea that the hurricane was of historical proportions, its name still being discussed in households around the country. The aftermath section, for example, is almost entirely political, relying on quotes to get the point across. That shouldn't be the case. I know the 20th anniversary is right around the corner, and like everyone here, I would have loved for the article to be on the main page on August 24. As it stands, though, I don't feel represents WPTC's best work. The foundation is there for sure—the numbers and meteorological stats are all there. They just need to be applied to the real world, how it was impacted and how it reacted. Juliancolton (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If people feel strongly about getting it on the Main Page for the anniversary, and George doesn't mind taking on some co-noms who are good at research (and I see several on this page), I'll be happy to help. (I don't mean that I want to co-nom, I just see some likely candidates here.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Had there been others to help me with this, it wouldn't be so "rushed". The least you guys could have done was give it a GAN in a reasonable amount of time. I decided to step up to the plate and fix this article, yet none other than Hurricanehink even lifted a finger. For the sources, since this is a high-impact storm, there will be claims such as that thousands of people died and none of the newspaper or government documents contain crap like that. The way you typed that and how you go on and on makes it seem like it is worse than this: [5]. As for the amount of impact, in The Bahamas and Florida, they are summaries of their respective Effects articles. For Louisiana, I started working on another sub article for that state. However, I got too bored when I realized once again, none would help me, and secondly, I had to focus on other articles to survive the WikiCup. You say it doesn't represent the WPTC's best work? But apparently this article and that one do. "Where in the hell is the cavalry on this one?"--12george1 (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did give you a 19 KB review, but otherwise, I did not help nor offered to help, as I tend to work on EPAC seasons/storms. However, I would not mind fixing a few things here and there, but that might be weird given that I gave the longest review. No offense anyone, but I suggest to all WPTC is to focus on at least moderately high important articles (for me, it's active era EPAC stuff, though ill admit some of the articles are do are not very important) instead of sitting around and doing nothing/working on less important topics. I am somewhat dissipated in lack of assistance for this article, this is not a typical landfalling hurricane. Does anyone here notice the topic on the IRC channel "FAC: Andrew - be nice and please help out (link is)" Still, I think this article is very good, though I recently noticed a few ref errors that I did not catch above. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about instead of complaining about it being rushed...review the article and place your specific comments here so that George can improve the article and it can pass as a featured article? I mean, that's the least all of us could do considering he's the only one that got off his lazy butt to work on anything. That's the reasonable action here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GabeMc:

Lead
  • Wind shear is mentioned four times in the first paragraph. Is this level of detail appropriate for the lead? I would reccomend trimming the play-by-play in favour of a more readable summary.
  • "The hurricane emerged into the Gulf of Mexico as a Category 4 hurricane", "a minimal Category 3 hurricane" Do we need to keep repeating "hurricane" when mentioning the category?
  • UTC is used in the lead but not linked or described.
  • Clarify: When mentioning Andrew in the Bahamas it is referred to as a cyclone, which being in the sub-tropics is accurate, but perhaps confusing to the reader as the distinction between hurricane and cyclone has not yet been established.
  • Clarify: "In the Bahamas, Andrew brought high tides, hurricane force winds, and tornadoes, which caused considerable damage in the archipelago, especially on Cat Cays. At least 800 houses were destroyed ..." Where were the houses that were destroyed? Try: "In the Bahamas, Andrew brought high tides, hurricane force winds, and tornadoes, which caused considerable damage in the archipelago, where at least 800 houses were destroyed" Or similar.

~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks Spotchecks for Hurricane Andrew using numbering from revision [6] There are roughly 109 cited sentances and we choose 15 randomly

  • 1 In neighboring Alabama, the storm's rainfall peaked at 4.71 in (120 mm) in Aliceville.[1]
Source says: it's a table, but it matches :)
  • 2 President Bush also visited Louisiana and said, "[it] hasn't been as devastating [as in Florida]", but also noted that "The destruction from this storm goes beyond anything we have known in recent years". After his visit to Louisiana, President Bush declared only Terrebonne Parish as a disaster area,[2]
Source says: Page not found :(
  • 3 As the high pressure system to its north weakened, a strong mid-latitude trough approached the area from the northwest. This caused the hurricane to decelerate to the northwest, and winds decreased as Andrew approached the Gulf Coast of the United States.[3]
Source says: "the high pressure system to its northeast weakened and a strong mid-latitude trough approached the area from the northwest. Steering currents began to change. Andrew turned toward the northwest and its forward speed decreased to about 8 kt." - bits of these feel a bit close paraphrase - but I can see how you would say it all that differently...
  • 4 Outside of Miami-Dade County, effects were relatively minimal, except in Broward, Monroe, and Collier counties. In Broward County, property damage reached about $100 million (1992 USD) and three fatalities were reported.[3]
Source says: It's a table and it matches up.
  • 5 After the season had ended, the World Meteorological Organisation's RA IV Hurricane Committee retired the name Andrew from the Atlantic tropical cyclone naming lists and replaced it with Alex.[4][5]
Source says: " Alex has replaced Andrew in 1998" - 'Alex' not mentioned in second reference?
As you said the first source covers the fact Alex has replaced Andrew in 1998, while the second covers the fact that Andrew was retired. So whats the problem?.Jason Rees (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6 A tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa on August 14. Under the influence of a ridge of high pressure to its north, the wave tracked quickly westward. An area of convection developed along the wave axis to the south of the Cape Verde islands, and on August 15, meteorologists began classifying the system with the Dvorak technique. The thunderstorm activity became more concentrated, and narrow spiral rainbands developed around a developing center of circulation. Based on a Dvorak T-number of 2.0, it is estimated Tropical Depression Three developed late on August 16, while about 1,630 miles (2,620 km) east-southeast of Barbados.[3]
Source says: "Satellite pictures and upper-air data indicate that Hurricane Andrew formed from a tropical wave that crossed from the west coast of Africa to the tropical North Atlantic Ocean on 14 August 1992. The wave moved westward at about 20 kt, steered by a swift and deep easterly current on the south side of an area of high pressure. The wave passed to the south of the Cape Verde Islands on the following day. At that point, meteorologists at the National Hurricane Center (NHC) Tropical Satellite Analysis and Forecast (TSAF) unit and the Synoptic Analysis Branch (SAB) of the National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service (NESDIS) found the wave sufficiently well-organized to begin classifying the intensity of the system using the Dvorak (1984) analysis technique.

Convection subsequently became more focused in a region of cyclonic cloud rotation. Narrow spiral-shaped bands of clouds developed around the center of rotation on 16 August. At 1800 UTC on the 16th (UTC precedes EDT by four hours), both the TSAF unit and SAB calculated a Dvorak T-number of 2.0 and the "best track" (Table 1 and Fig. 1 [85K GIF]) shows that the transition from tropical wave to tropical depression took place at that time." - looks good to me...

Source matches.
  • 8 One person drowned from the surge in Eleuthera, and two others died in nearby The Bluff.[7]
Source says deaths where in Lower Bogue?
Source matches.
  • 10 Along Dauphin Island, high tides left severe beach erosion, with up to 30 ft (9.1 m) lost in some areas.[9]
Source matches.
  • 11 The storm first struck Eleuthera,[10]
I think this matches... but I confess I'm not entirely sure...
  • 12 Much of the damage in Florida was caused by high winds. Although effects from Andrew were catastrophic, the extent of damage was limited mainly from Kendall to Key Largo due to the small wind field of the storm.[3]
Source says: "Florida was extreme from the Kendall district southward through Homestead and Florida City, to near Key Largo" - can't find any mention of 'wind field' - am I missing something?
  • 13 By early on August 18, the storm maintained concentrated convection near the center with spiral bands to its west as the winds increased to 50 mph (80 km/h).[11]
Source says: " CONCENTRATED CONVECTION PERSISTS NEAR THE CIRCULATION CENTER AND SOME DEEP CONVECTION IS NOW OBSERVED ALONG A SPIRAL BAND TO THE WEST OF THE CENTER. THE INTENSITY IS SET AT 45 KT...", which I think matches....
  • 14 As Andrew was approaching, an estimated 20,000-30,000 tourists were in the Florida Keys (Monroe County).[12]
Source matches.
  • 15 Hurricane Andrew weakened rapidly as it turned to the north and northeast, falling to tropical storm intensity within ten hours. After entering Mississippi, the cyclone deteriorated to tropical depression status early on August 27. Accelerating northeastward, the depression began merging with the approaching frontal system, and by midday on August 28, Andrew ceased to meet the qualifications of a tropical cyclone while located over the southern Appalachian Mountains.[3]
I'm struggling to find mentions of 'ten hours' in the source - Mississippi is mentioned a few times, but I can see how it might support this... I'm likely missing something here though...


That's the end of the checks - you might want to comment on 2,3,5, 8, 12 15 - I'm sure most of this is just a bit of clarification required (this is also my first time spotchecking so any feedback would be cool  :) Fayedizard (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference gulfrain was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Peter Applebome (1992-08-27). "Hurricane Andrew; Hurricane Rips Louisiana Coast Before Dying Out". New York Times. New York City, New York. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
  3. ^ a b c d e Edward Rappaport; National Hurricane Center (1993-12-10). Hurricane Andrew (Preliminary Report). United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
  4. ^ John (Jack) Beven II; National Hurricane Center (1997-03-17). "Worldwide Tropical Cyclone Names 1996–2001". Miami, Florida: United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Archived from the original on 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2012-06-22.
  5. ^ National Hurricane Center (2012-04-13). "Tropical Cyclone Naming History and Retired Names". Miami, Florida: United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Archived from the original on 2012-06-22. Retrieved 2012-06-22.
  6. ^ "Andrew picks up speed as it races across gulf". Detroit Free Press. Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Wallet Digital Archives. New Orleans, Louisiana. 1992-08-27. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
  7. ^ Arthur Rolle (1992-10-30). Hurricane Andrew in the Bahamas (Report). Nassau, Bahamas: National Hurricane Center. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
  8. ^ Arthur Rolle (1992-10-30). Hurricane Andrew in the Bahamas (Report). Nassau, Bahamas: National Hurricane Center. p. 2. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference al was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Edward Rappaport (2005-02-07). Hurricane Andrew Report Addendum (Report). Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Wallet Digital Archives. Miami, Florida: National Hurricane Center. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
  11. ^ Edward Rappaport; National Hurricane Center (1992-08-18). Tropical Storm Andrew Discussion Five (Report). Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Wallet Digital Archives. Miami, Florida: United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
  12. ^ Dennis Henize; National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Key West Florida (1992-08-30). "Hurricane Andrew Post Storm Report". United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. Retrieved 2012-05-08.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Andrew/archive2&oldid=1136097302"