Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Danny (1997)

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 promoted 14:00, 15 December 2007.

Hurricane Danny (1997)

previous FAC

Failed one FA nomination earlier this year, has been improved since the last nomination. I believe it is now a comprehensive article, with the previous grammar issues fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not quite there. Juliancolton (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is not there? Remember that objections in FAC have to be actionable. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think it is ready for FA. Support. Juliancolton (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(good thing supports don't, eh?)--Keerllston 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Make sure to copy the CNN links out of the Wayback Machine, as they're currently kind of broken. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I did that. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's very pretty--Keerllston 09:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Might it possible to merge some of the Impact sections? Surely Florida could be merged into "East Coast", and maybe Mississippi could be combined with either Alabama or Louisiana. Also, the long list of individual damage totals in the lead is unnecessary and a bit of an eyesore. (They could be moved into the impact sections with only a total mentioned in the lead.) —Verrai 06:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the impact sections, I've reorganized them a little bit. I've removed extra numbers from the lede as well. How does it look now? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much better. Support —Verrai 07:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When was this article put up for FAC? Juliancolton (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, never mind. it was put up on the 8th. Does that mean Hink has to write an article? Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments (Julian, it has to pass first, and sorry Hello32020, but I gotta comment on this). First, the lede is a bit messy and confusing; it contains an entire sentence about Emily in 2005 breaking Danny's record, which is inappropriate for the fifth sentence of the article. The second clause of the first sentence (second hurricane and fourth named storm) might be confusing to non-hurricane readers, since the sentence after it says it was the fifth tropical or subtropical cyclone. I'd like to see a bit more storm history in the first paragraph and less about the rest of the season (since some SH is in the second paragraph as well, that would have to be removed). Also, maybe a breakdown of deaths by state would be useful in the lede. Some of the dollar values, and their inflations, are confusing and sometimes incorrect. $100 million can be seen as between 1 to 3 significant digits; thus its inflated figure should have between 1 and 3 significant digits, not $128.47 million (which is 5 sig. digits). The dates in the storm history should be Wikilinked, to allow for user preferences to kick in (July 17 will show up as 17 July or July 17 depending on prefs). In impact - "likely a lower amount than if a larger storm were to repeat it." seems like OR and a bit unnecessary. Writing in the impact could be better; the first three sentences in the Gulf Coast section talk about the same thing (heavy rainfall - we get it). Then, in the next paragraph, its structure is a bit weird. The first sentence starts by talking about electricity then switches abruptly to boat damage. I recommend you combine alike sentences, such as those on the heavy rainfall with sentences about flooding, or those about the waves with sentences about erosion. In the Mississippi paragraph, "Eastern Jackson County had the most impact throughout Mississippi" begins the section, which seems to imply that Jackson County was hit pretty badly. Then, a bit later it says that a few houses were flooded in the county. Was there much damage in the county (perhaps some more info is needed, only one source is used for the whole state), or was damage indeed minor. There are a few more locations where metric units are needed; instances where the original unit is rounded should also have the converted unit be rounded (about 3 inches should be 75 mm, not 76.1). Also, the impact section has a few more instances where there are a few too many digits for damage figures, such as the tornado damage. One quick thing I just noticed - the HPC report says Danny dropped 37.75 inches of rainfall on Dauphin Island, but the article says 36.71. Which one is it? That's it for now. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a little of that. Juliancolton (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed up your areas of concern Hurricanehink, with the help of Julian. Lead is more organized and added death totals to the impact section of the lead. Other concerns have also been addressed. Hello32020 (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am going to make a couple minor edits, and after that, I think it passes. Juliancolton (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - The only thing wrong is that picture of Danny to the south of Mass. is in the Gulf Coast impact section. I don't think that is a good place for it. Juliancolton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. Hello32020 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks better. Juliancolton (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It looks better, but this sentence is a bit awkward; This is quite rare for a tropical cyclone, but occurred possibly due to having a good inflow from a baroclinic source. That was 10 years ago; surely there has been a reason found why it re-strengthened, or at least confirm the NHC's suspicion (MWR or AMS, perhaps?). --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Changed it to ...likely occurred... TCR says that the reason it strengthened over land suggests it strengthened due to a baroclinic source. Can't find anything further, hope this is good. Hello32020 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        This link explains the transition a little further, and says that the restrengthening was due to baroclinicity. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Added, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Alright, you have my support. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good article all in all. Nice job Hello. Certainly would make 1997 an inactive season with 2 FAs.^Mitch32^contribs 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is the other one? Juliancolton (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erika, and by the way please try not to have a line between two comments in * format, thanks. Hello32020 (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, sorry about that. Juliancolton (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, who decides when this actually passes? Juliancolton (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.