Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600/archive1

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 17:49, 19 August 2011 [1].

List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600

Featured list candidates/List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600/archive1

Nominator(s): bender235 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is finally completed and entirely sourced. In my opinion it meets FL criteria. bender235 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a rename to "List of pre-1600 Atlantic hurricanes". There's no notion of season introduced in the article, and the word 'season' appears in the prose and list exactly twice. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think it should be moved to something like "List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600", to be along the lines of List of Atlantic hurricanes in the 17th century. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with you that the current name is inconsistent. However, there are still articles like 1800–1809 Atlantic hurricane seasons (and so on) although there weren't officially defined seasons at that time, either. Also, your argument has a flaw: if we can't use the term "season" because it wasn't defined until 1850, we also can't use the term "hurricane", don't you think? --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, to be fair, the storms listed here have retroactively been labeled as hurricanes. That isn't the case for the seasons. As far as I know, there are any indications of a hurricane season until the 1900s, but the project has it labeled back to 1850 for convenience. As for the 1800-1809, I think that will and should be changed at a later point once that article is made better. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Just a heads up, the article was moved. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments a quick run through.

No lead image?

I'm not aware of any actual image of a 16th-century storm or the damage it left behind, so we'd have to use rather symbolic images like File:Pieter Bruegel d. Ä. 038b.jpg or File:Spanish Treasure Fleet.jpg. --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps worth reiterating at some point that you mean the year 1600.

Renaming the article should fix that. --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second para of lead is unreferenced.

Right. I'll look for some sources. --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damage/Notes -> Damage/notes

Why is the text small? No need.

--bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure there's too much benefit in splitting the table this way. Consider merging and making sortable.

I like that idea. Any support for this? --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vera Cruz and Roanoke are dab links.

--bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't use colour alone to represent a property, use a symbol as well per WP:ACCESS.

Done via ~. --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"1 of only 2 November" -> "One of two November..." per WP:MOSNUM.

--bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does N/A mean in Damage/notes? Not applicable? Not available?

It means sources only mention a storm, but nothing more specific. --bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 73 needs a pp. not just a p.

--bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links shouldn't be bare URLs.

--bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of the further reading needs an en-dash.

--bender235 (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Inconsistencies in the lead: I see Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast, and Gulf coast and Atlantic coast. Should the coasts be capitalized or not?

no caps, per naming convention. --bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Almost missed the symbols that go with the colors. In the little pre-tables key, try placing the symbol inside the color box. This would make the symbol–color match more obvious.

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1525 Cuba hurricane: "Of more than eighty persons on the ship, only eight were served." Don't understand this sentence. Is "were served" meant to be "survived"?

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1526 Puerto Rico hurricane: "and therefore might also affected...". Missing "have".

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1529 hurricane note is missing a period. Other similar notes have them later, so it should be made consistent here.

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1533 hurricane: "but where knocked off course by a hurricane...". "where" → "were".

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 1554 hurricane: Add "they" to "where they stranded"?

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake here; it already had the "they". I meant to say that "were" should be added, as in "where they were stranded." Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I still see this. Is there a reason it hasn't been changed? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally fixed. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~1559 hurricane: Typo in "wessels".~~

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1568 hurricane: Again, the last part of the note doesn't have a citation.
1541 hurricane: What is meant to be sourcing the last sentence of the note?

The wikilinks, on tsunami and attacked, respectively, were supposed to be the sources? Not enough? --bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe wikilinks to other articles that may or may not have sources are enough for featured content. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source anyway. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the other Wikipedia entries were meant to be the source, but the actual sources listed there. --bender235 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see how having something sourced in another article is sufficient citation for an FA or FL. An FL should not have to rely on another article for references; it should have references for the list's content itself. This is a stumbling block in my mind. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, too. Both 1541 and 1568. --bender235 (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~September 1588 hurricane: Another typo in "Havanna".~~

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~August 20, 1591 hurricane: "was caught by a the first of four hurricanes during the 1591 season." Remove "a".~~

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~September 9–10, 1591 hurricane: "another the third cyclone caught the Spanish fleet". Grammatical work needed here as well.~~

--bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Further reading section implies that the contents have not been included in the sources used. That's not the case here; the section serves as a bibliography. It should be called that, in one way or another (there are many ways to format a list of source books).

I'd say "further reading" implies that in each of these books there are more details on the hurricanes on this list (because this is, after all, only a list with short notes). --bender235 (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding an issue raised by TRM, count me in favor of merging the list and adding sorting. You probably don't need to make the notes column sortable, but sorting would be beneficial in the others. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

support and in favor of the name changePumpkinSky talk 01:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is no source for the 1529 hurricane in Puerto Rico. Another thing is that reference #57 is missing the author (Al Sandrik and Chris Landsea), the date (May 2003), and the publisher (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Actually, one more thing, reference #35 is missing the publisher (Puerto Rico Hurricane Center).--12george1 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say split-up the damage or description and the notes column into two like is done on List of Kraft Nabisco Championship champions, so that it could be more easily accessed instead of having to find them at the end of sentences. I would gladly Support if that is done!SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This is a list..." FLs don't start like this anymore. Also, in the damage/notes columns, sentence fragments should not have periods at the end. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you split up this sentence? It's incredibly long. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Even data from the early years of the Columbian era is suspect and incomplete because the distinction between a hurricane and an extratropical system was not drawn by Renaissance scientists and sailors and because European exploration and colonization of the regions affected by hurricanes did not begin in earnest until the mid-16th century."

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