Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical cyclone/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC) [1].

Tropical cyclone

Notified: Titoxd, Thegreatdr, Jason Rees, Hurricane Noah, Hurricanehink, WikiProject Tropical cyclone, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Meteorology, diff 03-09-2020

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article contains a few uncited paragraphs, and the long-term trends section is outdated and poorly structured. Additional minor comments on talk. Some issues have been tackled since the talk page notice, but further progress is needed.

This should be a saver, considering how many TC enthusiasts we have. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling with this one is that while it probably is a saver, its probably better to get some thoughts from the FAC community on the article as a whole.Jason Rees (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthiest unsourced passage appears to be the "Derivation" sub-sub-section, which has a textbook-like feel and might originally have been based on a single source. That's probably not too hard to fix. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically speaking, the entire section about Maximum Potential Intensity was copied onto the article as a merge from Maximum potential intensity, and I'm not sure the tropical cyclone article needs that much detail about MPI. I'm tempted to split it back out. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with that. Britannica's article (which seems quite decent) doesn't even seem to mention it.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a discussion is taking place on my talk page about the restructuring of the long-term trend section Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The uncited MPI derivation has been split back now. Could any of the experts look at the remaining info? Is that appropriate? FemkeMilene (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting to look through the more technical bits and I'm not 100% happy with it, I'm trying to go through it as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees and @Titoxd: could we have an update? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that with respect to @Titoxd and ThegreatDR: this articles needs a bit of weeding to make it more accessible. I am trying to do this as time allows and have a rough plan in the back of my head which I will write up on the talk page.Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update the plan is there, and I'm updating the impacts of climate variability part as a whole now. Not yet familiar with this, so currently printing some review chapters / papers. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene you may find some of the sources on paleotempestology useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it's difficult to get a good short narrative out of that and the review papers. I'll see whether I can find some books about the tropical cyclones in general to figure out how much attention is really due.. Paleotempoestology seems to be a collection of puzzle pieces that need to be assembled still. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To say nothing of biased. Like, one would think that tropical cyclones only exist in Belize, the eastern USA, China and Australia if one went by the paleotempestology research papers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Climatology section I started to write the other day. It might be better/easier to expand that with a few bits of information and indirectly talk about paleotempestology in it.Jason Rees (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Talking indirectly about paleotempestology is a good idea. This 2010 book talks about it only in its chapter on climate change; and dedicates only 1/9th of that chapter to it. If I can find a more modern book about it with an equal small part dedicated to paleotempestology, I'm very happy to see it integrated into another section instead of being a stand-alone subsection. I could weave it into the subsection on climatic variability in a similar fashion as that book.

About climatology; I wonder if we could rename it into 'seasons', to make clear the distinction between that section and a) observations and b) climatic variations. Some of that first paragraph is more logically placed under observations. I further think that our section observations should be moved upwards, before climatology. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This 2016 book also talks about paleotempestology only in the context of current climate change. This seems to be the most logical place to put it. A shame the IPCC report has been postponed until August.. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: can we have an update? It seems that quite a bit of work is still needed. Do we need to try and involve others? FemkeMilene (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene: I have been a bit busy in real life over the last few weeks and havent been able to edit much. Yeah a lot of work is still needed and help from others would be appreciated.Jason Rees (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have patched up the citation needed tags outside of the §Climatology section. For the most part the preexisting uncited information was factually correct but I've added some additional clarifications/details where needed. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 15:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have you on board. Of my initial comments, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12 and 13 have not yet been addressed. Would you be able to help there as well? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I addressed most of these comments, though point 9 (concerning the comprehensiveness of the Forecasting section) and point 13 (concerning the coverage of the Popular culture section) will require deeper research and time... not sure if I can work on those promptly. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 00:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Going on two months, and this article is a long way from there; not sure why we are not just moving forward to FARC here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees@TheAustinMan@Titoxd@XOR'easter: there are still a few big topics to tackle, and we've not started on the details yet. I'm leaning towards FARC as well, but still hoping that all substantial work is done during this phase, so that it's likely that the article will be saved during FARC. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah has posted a new plan to do some major work. Let's hope the pace ticks up. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proceed to FARC There is so much that needs to be fixed in this and I don't think we should be holding up the process for a long time period, even if people like myself are working on it. Given how long this has been open already, it should proceed to FARC and be delisted. It is my thought that this should be delisted and then renominated at a later date once it is fixed. Noah^Talk 23:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note here that I agree with @Hurricane Noah:'s opinion here since there is too much weeding to do and not enough time to do it in.Jason Rees (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  I think this article will end up better if it goes through GAN and FAC, so I'm happy with that course of action. The current work is still very much broad strokes to get the necessary info in, and unnecessary info out. Happy to help with a peer review if desired. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Outstanding issues from the review section mostly concern coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as there's a lot of restructuring that needs to occur. We need to discuss how we will structure the page exactly. Additionally, there are several areas in the article that need massive amounts of expansion to cover everything comprehensively. Not to mention refs are outdated in multiple areas. Noah^Talk 18:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Hurricane Noah. Progress has slowed, a lot of work needs to occur, and this has already been open for almost 3 months. Hog Farm _Talk 05:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Hope to see it back at GAN within the year. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Major contributors to the article are calling for the delist, so I prefer to defer to them. There are some sections that are tagged with needing expansion, including an Intensity section that currently has no text. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.