Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of North Carolina hurricanes (1980–present)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 03:41, 26 December 2007.
Alright, I just published this earlier today, and I believe it meets the Featured list criteria; it's useful (I'm making a series on North Carolina hurricanes, similarly to what I did for Florida), comprehensive to the best of my knowledge, everything is sourced, follows the MOS (I believe; if there are any MOS breaches I'll be glad to fix it), has good image usage, and the feedback I've heard seems positive. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That was quick. Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw in another recent nomination that WP does not want/allow rolling references, as the references are at the end of this list. Please check this out. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, alright. I just wanted to experiment with that, but I'm fine with a simple reflist. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Accessibility concerns were the primary reason why the template was deleted, and recreation of the method by CS are being taken down as they show up. Circeus (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, alright. I just wanted to experiment with that, but I'm fine with a simple reflist. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a straightforward one. Circeus (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I'd like to suggest one improvement. On a large display screen with the browser maximized, the two columnar tables under "Deadly storms" end up at the extreme left and right sides of the screen, separated by a huge blank area. The layout in "Monthly statistics" is much nicer. Can the layout of "Deadly storms" be changed to be like "Monthly statistics"? --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there could be a setup like this, with the two tables to the left, and a picture to take up the other empty space. Juliancolton (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, after a few hours of experimenting, I got it right. Now the deaths are in a nice graphical table. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables seem a comfusing. Juliancolton (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you find confusing about it? The death table on the left lists storms by total deaths (and breaking it up into direct and indirect), while the table on the right is a graphical representation of the data on the left. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when you read which color for the right table is direct and indirect deaths, you understand it. But, as you read it, (I did at least) you forget which color represents what. Juliancolton (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clarified at the top of the section, so I don't think that's a problem for most people. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have a real problem, I just wanted to make sure it was clear for other people. Juliancolton (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The revised table, by itself, seems sufficient to me. The graph does not improve my understanding of the information, and because the graph is so tall, it could be hard to interpret (as Juliancolton notes). --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest to do with the table? Would you rather there be no color changes, perhaps, to represent total deaths? --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. :P Juliancolton (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asking Orlady, since it was their objection. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know. And if I remember right, I was the one who brought up the subject to start with. Juliancolton (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Orlady brought it up first, and I was asking for their opinion. --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, I did not notice this question. I like the table, and don't see a need for an associated graph. I don't think this article is enhanced by color-coded information on deaths. --Orlady (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: Why not make that table sortable, so interested readers can sort it by hurricane name and date? --Orlady (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Urgh, the Wikitable is now acting screwy, after I added the sortable function. Do you, by chance, no how to fix it, with the sub-columns? If not, I'll have to take away the sortable feature. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes, it is definitely acting screwy. I don't know how to fix that with the subcolumns, but I'm not one of the tech experts around here. Since the sort is a "might be nice" item, I think the best solution would be to eliminate it. The sort works OK for number of deaths, which is the default order, anyway. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I removed the sortable. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes, it is definitely acting screwy. I don't know how to fix that with the subcolumns, but I'm not one of the tech experts around here. Since the sort is a "might be nice" item, I think the best solution would be to eliminate it. The sort works OK for number of deaths, which is the default order, anyway. --Orlady (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Urgh, the Wikitable is now acting screwy, after I added the sortable function. Do you, by chance, no how to fix it, with the sub-columns? If not, I'll have to take away the sortable feature. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest to do with the table? Would you rather there be no color changes, perhaps, to represent total deaths? --Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The revised table, by itself, seems sufficient to me. The graph does not improve my understanding of the information, and because the graph is so tall, it could be hard to interpret (as Juliancolton notes). --Orlady (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't have a real problem, I just wanted to make sure it was clear for other people. Juliancolton (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's clarified at the top of the section, so I don't think that's a problem for most people. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, when you read which color for the right table is direct and indirect deaths, you understand it. But, as you read it, (I did at least) you forget which color represents what. Juliancolton (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you find confusing about it? The death table on the left lists storms by total deaths (and breaking it up into direct and indirect), while the table on the right is a graphical representation of the data on the left. --Hurricanehink (talk) 19:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables seem a comfusing. Juliancolton (talk) 19:42, 21 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 list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.