Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dog (1950)
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 promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because its meets all criteria, and is also made by User:Hurricanehink. The article would be the first from the 1950s to reach FA and is very much notable. The article has used up all the information our users could find and is of good length. Feel free to leave comments and Hurricanehink, me or someone can fix them. Mitch32contribs 18:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmm. Would it be possible to move the note on naming a little earlier? It looks very odd to us used to the modern conventions. Otherwise, ho hum, another excellent article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Why must they always flaunt their excellent research skills and good writing? =P Adam Cuerden talk 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment article contains several statements that look like quotations, but they are not placed in quotation marks; instead, they are placed in italics. This is not standard WP handling of such material Hmains 03:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be fixed now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support
- On the basis that it meet #1b Comprehensive.
Remarks:
- Only one external link?!?
- Criterion #1b is of low-standards.
Learnedo 01:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-evaluate. The external link is to provide more information on the subject. There are, in fact, 15 references in the article. Seeing as it does not neglect any major facts, it does not fail Criterion #1b. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Few things:
- "At least 17 naval ships were moved in preparation for the hurricane." Please cite.
- "Damage throughout the Lesser Antilles totaled $1 million." Please cite.
- The total damage should be stated in the lead as its a important number.
- It states it became "extratropical on September 12," and on the side, it uses "Dissipated." Can we not go with one?
- Should add more than one external link.
- "thousands left homeless just weeks after Hurricane Bake" a bit more precise, no need for the exact number but this is far too vague.
- "in newspaper reports, and its name was scarcely used" Perhaps change the phrasing of "scarcely used."
- "Operationally, hurricanes were not referred.." Change 'Operationally' to something along the lines of "according to such and such."
- "In the aftermath of the hurricane, the newspaper The Daily Gleaner started a hurricane relief fund" It's hard to believe they are the only major entities to start a relief fund; perhaps that was the case however.
- Request: More images if possible.
- Note: Fifteen references is really slim. There really should be more than fifteen references even if it's not a requirement. I'm sure there was other major media/news coverage besides the Associated Press and the Canadian Press. Learnedo 01:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Those facts are already cited, I'm not sure of the problem (the ref for the first one appears a sentence or two later; all of the info from that ref is referenced only once). I added damage to lead. To clarify, the dissipation date in the Infobox means the day when a storm is no longer a tropical cyclone, while the mentioning of it becoming extratropical refers to how it lost its tropical characteristics. In short, no, we can not go with one. I don't believe any other external links would be appropriate; the tropical cyclone Wikiproject generally reserves the See Also section for the most official source of information. The "thousands left homeless" is indeed all that was printed in the newspapers. Scarcely was changed to seldom. Operationally is appropriate, as it refers to how it was treated at the time. Sadly the info on this hurricane is quite small, probably due to its relatively minor impact (worst damage occurred in an area already struck by previous hurricane, so focus is more on the first one) and the fact that other severe hurricanes followed it (including a major hurricane threatening Florida, which naturally captured the headlines more). Thus, there could've been other relief funds, or maybe there weren't, but it wasn't reported, and information in that time period is rather poor. Also, that's why there are only fifteen references. There might be other images, but I'm not sure how available they are. The only possibilities I can think of are an unofficial rainfall map, maybe another fair use image, or maybe another image of Surface Weather Analysis, meaning another image is not likely. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Exceptionally neat, complete, objective, and impressive response. I'll be looking forward to your future articles. Leranedo 10:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Those facts are already cited, I'm not sure of the problem (the ref for the first one appears a sentence or two later; all of the info from that ref is referenced only once). I added damage to lead. To clarify, the dissipation date in the Infobox means the day when a storm is no longer a tropical cyclone, while the mentioning of it becoming extratropical refers to how it lost its tropical characteristics. In short, no, we can not go with one. I don't believe any other external links would be appropriate; the tropical cyclone Wikiproject generally reserves the See Also section for the most official source of information. The "thousands left homeless" is indeed all that was printed in the newspapers. Scarcely was changed to seldom. Operationally is appropriate, as it refers to how it was treated at the time. Sadly the info on this hurricane is quite small, probably due to its relatively minor impact (worst damage occurred in an area already struck by previous hurricane, so focus is more on the first one) and the fact that other severe hurricanes followed it (including a major hurricane threatening Florida, which naturally captured the headlines more). Thus, there could've been other relief funds, or maybe there weren't, but it wasn't reported, and information in that time period is rather poor. Also, that's why there are only fifteen references. There might be other images, but I'm not sure how available they are. The only possibilities I can think of are an unofficial rainfall map, maybe another fair use image, or maybe another image of Surface Weather Analysis, meaning another image is not likely. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as primary editor. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor oppose - the article looks a tad short, but given it was 1950 when the event happened, I think we can forgive that.Support Davnel03 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
**Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 inches, use 4 inches, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 inches.[?]
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.[?]- In the "Storm history" section there doesn't seem to be many refs. Does the reference cover the whole of the paragraph(s)?
- Yes, the references cite everything from the sentence before the ref to the previous reference.
- Preparation section could do with a little expansion if possible.
- That is probably not possible. Preparations in the Lesser Antilles was not documented in the newspapers I accessed, although I believe the preparations for the US is adequate. Hurricanehink (talk)
- Steering current - red link in 2nd para of storm history. Could it possibly link to anywhere adequate?
- Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I put in that redlink while copy editing, so it was actually added after the article was nominated here. I didn't know what a steering current was, and it looked like it might merit an article of its own. On the suggestion of stubbifying it, I must say that, personally, I despise stubs created solely to fill a redlink; if it doesn't merit the time to write a comprehensive article then please don't waste my time with a dictionary definition; point it to Wiktionary if that's all you are going to provide, that way the link colour tells me what I'm getting before I click. Andplus 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added an appropriate Wikilink for the reference. Hurricanehink (talk)
- I put in that redlink while copy editing, so it was actually added after the article was nominated here. I didn't know what a steering current was, and it looked like it might merit an article of its own. On the suggestion of stubbifying it, I must say that, personally, I despise stubs created solely to fill a redlink; if it doesn't merit the time to write a comprehensive article then please don't waste my time with a dictionary definition; point it to Wiktionary if that's all you are going to provide, that way the link colour tells me what I'm getting before I click. Andplus 12:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Any chance you could insert referencing inside the infobox?
- Looks good, please leave a message on my talkpage when you have rectified these problems as I am bound to forget to come back here at a later date. Cheers, Davnel03 21:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Which units are missing nbsp;s? It is possible we missed one, but I checked and it looks like the article has non-breaking spaces throughout.]
- There was only one, inside the title of a ref. I went and fixed it. Davnel03 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pushed down the External links section to the end.
- Struck. Davnel03 16:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Storm history sections are usually referenced to a few, or even one, canonical references.
- Preparations info may not be available, considering the age of the storm.
- Could you possibly try and find some. If not, its not a major issue. Davnel03 16:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No. We can't add the reference to the infobox, per Bug 8693. Besides that, it is not necessary, as the numbers are covered and cited elsewhere.
- Which units are missing nbsp;s? It is possible we missed one, but I checked and it looks like the article has non-breaking spaces throughout.]
Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work. Only one question: in Preparations "...if any, are unknown," is ambiguous and I cannot find it in the references. Is it supposed to mean that the preparations were undocumented, or that research hasn't uncovered any evidence of any preparations, or is it that the appropriate reference (maybe buried in some library in the Lesser Anitlles) hasn't been found by WP editors yet? --maclean 19:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, it's the last one. Since they are unknown, should that part just be removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. If the sources aren't available, then WP cannot be expected to report on them. This would become an actionable objection only if someone could show that the sources existed. --maclean 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. If the sources aren't available, then WP cannot be expected to report on them. This would become an actionable objection only if someone could show that the sources existed. --maclean 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, it's the last one. Since they are unknown, should that part just be removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 1 November 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.