Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)/archive1

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 promoted by Ucucha 00:43, 16 February 2012 [1].

Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)

[edit]

Tropical Storm Cindy (1993) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Auree ★ 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively short article on a short-lived yet devastating storm this time around. Cindy produced historic rainfall rates over Martinique as no more than a disorganized tropical storm, causing flooding that wiped out entire communities, killed two people, and left hundreds homeless. As if that weren't enough, it went on to bother the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico with blustery conditions before killing another two people in the Dominican Republic. The article is a GA and received a peer review from two editors, but any comments are welcome and appreciated! Disclaimer: I can fluently read both Spanish and French, so any sources in those languages were translated by myself. Auree ★ 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Binksternet
  • The storm track is first described as moving "steadily west-northwestward". Next, the storm is said to have "moved to the west-northwest". How about using "continued to the west-northwest", as "moved" implies a change in direction.
  • The name "Cindy"... I'm not much of a storm follower but this phrase to me suggests two actions, not one: "the NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Cindy". First, the NHC upgraded the depression to "tropical storm". Second, the NHC assigned the new storm the name "Cindy".
  • The en dash should not take the place of an intermediate word in these constructions: "with totals ranging from 4–10 in"; "received rainfall amounts of between 2.0–4.5 in". Those bits should be either
    • "with totals ranging from 4 to 10 in"; "received rainfall amounts between 2.0 and 4.5 in" (ditching the en dash) or
    • "with totals of 4–10 in"; "received rainfall amounts of 2.0–4.5 in" (keeping the en dash).


Comments: A tidy-looking storm article. I have a few mainly minor prose issues.

  • Do we use "USD"? I thought $ was assumed US unless specified otherwise
  • Phrasing: "The origins of Tropical Storm Cindy trace back to..." → "...can be traced to" (the origins are what are traced, not what are doing the tracing)
  • Comma needed after "(hPa; 29.74 inHg)"
  • Some confusion as to classification as "storm" or "cyclone" in the Meteorological history section. We read that "the NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Cindy around 1800 UTC on August 14", but at the start of the next section we have "When Cindy became a tropical cyclone on August 14..." Are the terms "storm" and "cyclone interchangeable? When you say "prompting the NHC to declassify it as a tropical cyclone on August 17", I assume you mean downgrade it from a cyclone to...something else?
  • "Tropical depression" is the weakest classification for tropical cyclones, i.e. a tropical cyclone with winds of less than 39 mph. I've clarified it in the article -- does that do the trick? And declassified as a tropical cyclone, not necessarily downgraded. It might have had equally strong winds or thunderstorms as a remnant system; it just didn't meet the requirements for tropical cyclone classification, as it lacked an organized circulation. Auree ★ 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the links look unnecessary. For example, "violent rainfall" links to rain. I think we all know what rain is, violent or otherwise.
  • In what sense wer the flood waters "thick"?
  • "Damage across the small commune alone..." No small commune identified that I can see
  • Distinctly odd phrasing: "trading vessels from Petite Martinique briefly ceased their purchases from supplying fishers". I take it to mean that these tradng vessels stopped buying fish from local fishing boats, and if that is so it needs to be said more clearly.
  • "In spite of the thorough preparations across Puerto Rico, Cindy's center passed well to the south of the island." How very unsporting of it! I don't think, however, that "In spite of" is appropriate. Perhaps "Thorough preparations were made across Puerto Rico, although in the event Cindy's center passed well to the south of the island."
  • Non-prose point: I wonder at the usefulness of the two "see also" links.

Happy to support in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian! Concerns addressed; the ones that needed clarification have been replied to inline. Auree ★ 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: subject to any issues arising from sources or media (which I have not checked). My queries above are satidfactorily addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 1: link gives a different author name than you do, why? Also applies to other citations to same source (and need page number here)
  • Fn 12: check spelling of author name
  • Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books links
  • For some reason, there's no accessdate parameter in the edit window (I removed all of them for Google Books a few days ago), but the retrieval date still shows up... I'll try to see if I can get rid of it. Auree ★★ 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the problem is beyond that. I can't get the reference to stop showing up even after removing it entirely. Never mind, the problem was contained in the citations for the rainfall template. Auree ★★ 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the source and image reviews, Nikki Auree ★★ 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - exceptionally written piece that seamlessly incorporates quite a bit of info. Absolutely the most comprehensive and extensive account ever written on the storm, so I support its promotion without hesitation. I especially like how you did the first paragraph of the intro, which is always hard for me to perfect. Juliancolton (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the laudatory comments and support, Julian! Auree ★★ 21:27, 13 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tropical_Storm_Cindy_(1993)/archive1&oldid=1136095039"