Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Danny (1997)/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.
After improving this article, I am wondering if the community believes it meets featured status. Thank you for your comments. Hello32020 21:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. Here's some random things I'd like to see. "Danny brought about the end of a busy early start of the season" - could be worded better. Perhaps the first sentence in the storm history and this sentence could be merged, as the first sentence in the storm history is a bit of place. Per the standards of the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, the first paragraph should be a summary of the storm history, with the second for the impact. The other info should either be in the first paragraph or later in the body of the article. Disaster emergencies aren't important enough, IMO, to be mentioned in the lede. The first sentence in the second paragraph sounds like all of the damage was from the rainfall, though it wasn't - should be reworded. Calling the system Danny in the first paragraph before it became a tropical storm should be avoided. Avoid redundancies, such as calling it Danny every single sentence or "hurricane force winds in the hurricane". "This is quite rare for a tropical cyclone, but occurred due to having good inflow into the circulation, and the right barometric conditions to develop." Self references should be avoided, and in general the statement could use better explanation. Is there a reason it stalled near Massachusetts? Overall, more wikilinks are needed, such as tropical cyclone warnings and watches in the preparations section. Try to avoid excessive usage of passive voice (was issued, for example). Try rewording the first paragraph of the preparations section by avoiding self-referencing and passive voice, and possibly changing the order of sentences. I copyedited the preps. Were any evacuated other than Grand Isle, and were there any preparations for Massachusetts? The impact section, in general, needs a copyedit for better flow. With some work, I'll support, but not quite yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I addressed your comments in the article. Hello32020 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's some more. First, I'd like to see some more statistics. How many homes were destroyed in each state? Damaged? Overall? Due to flooding/due to tornado/winds? That would be much better and more appropriate for the lede. The lede should also mention the rainfall total and the number of tornadoes spawned. "Most of the damage further northeast " is that further northeast in Alabama, or in the Mid-Atlantic/New England? In general, the lead could use a rewrite with new and different information on a larger scale. The impact section is messy. The Louisiana paragraph, for example, goes from rain, to rains and winds, to erosion, to rain, to power loss and boats damaged, to winds and surge, etc. It's not very well-organized. You mention damage in a two counties in separate places, but it doesn't have a state-wide damage. Some parts seem a bit too lengthy, specifically the Gulf Coast of the impact section. It might be easier if individual states have their own sections, so there could be one paragraph on just meteorological statistics and one for damage. I can't support yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been able to find state by state damage statistics, but fixed it as much as I could. Hello32020 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It could still be better organized. The Louisiana section is a little better, but why is the damage total from Plaquemines Parish randomly inserted in the first paragraph when the rest of it is about meteorological aspects. Also, the fact that damage was minimal in southeastern Louisiana due to its small size should be mentioned (right in the NCDC link). The overall writing doesn't seem very professional either. Examples include "This occurred after waters surged over 4 feet in a matter of minutes" (awkward), the usage of the extremely vague word "some" (8 times, far too many), and the over usage of being verbs (22 times) or phrases in the passive voice (22 times). Hurricanehink (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been able to find state by state damage statistics, but fixed it as much as I could. Hello32020 20:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's some more. First, I'd like to see some more statistics. How many homes were destroyed in each state? Damaged? Overall? Due to flooding/due to tornado/winds? That would be much better and more appropriate for the lede. The lede should also mention the rainfall total and the number of tornadoes spawned. "Most of the damage further northeast " is that further northeast in Alabama, or in the Mid-Atlantic/New England? In general, the lead could use a rewrite with new and different information on a larger scale. The impact section is messy. The Louisiana paragraph, for example, goes from rain, to rains and winds, to erosion, to rain, to power loss and boats damaged, to winds and surge, etc. It's not very well-organized. You mention damage in a two counties in separate places, but it doesn't have a state-wide damage. Some parts seem a bit too lengthy, specifically the Gulf Coast of the impact section. It might be easier if individual states have their own sections, so there could be one paragraph on just meteorological statistics and one for damage. I can't support yet. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I addressed your comments in the article. Hello32020 20:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could use some explanation (or wikilink) for the word "baroclinically". Also, I agree with pretty much all of Hink's comments. -RunningOnBrains 21:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object; prose needs serious work. Some examples:
- "Danny... brought about the end of a busy early start of the season." Something more clear and precise please (what constitutes the "early start of the season"?)
- "a rare occurrence in the middle of July due to two high pressure systems." Doesn't make sense. Was it rare for that time of the month? Or rare because it traveled into the gulf despite the high pressure? Or were the high pressure systems the reason it did the rare thing of entering the Gulf in July?
- "The storm dropped a record for Alabama, 36.71 inches (932 mm) on Dauphin Island." Specify that this is a rainfall total.
- "Most of the damage on the East Coast was from various tornadoes and waterspouts that caused damage on the ground." Typically the vast majority of damage done "on the East Coast" is damage on the ground, and typically (actually, by definition), tornadoes touch the ground and thus do damage on it. I'm not sure how waterspouts can cause damage on the ground. Essentially, this sentence is incomprehensible fluff.
- That's just the lead. Please fix these problems and examine the rest of the text for similar ones. --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Like Spangineer wrote, the article does still need a bit of copyediting. The NOAA seal should also be removed from Image:1997DannyNOLARadar.PNG. That shouldn't be much trouble, since the background is only one color. I'd be happy to support once these things have been taken care of.-- Carabinieri 20:58, 8 March 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.