Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/November 2009
1941 Atlantic hurricane season
[edit]
- Main contributors: Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
Well, this is my first GTC. It's a fairly small topic, as it consists of just three pages. Nonetheless, it has a well-defined scope (the hurricane season) and all the articles are of a high quality. Cool3 (talk · contribs) also deserves credit for helping me with the 1941 Florida hurricane page. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm it is really not clear why hurricane 2 and 5 have subpages, while #4, the deadliest one, doesn't. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Because #4 struck a less developed area of the world, there really isn't much info. #2 and #5 struck the US, which is why they have enough info to sustain their own pages. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - this reminds me of the Hurricane Dean nom, which passed, but I voted neutral because there was no article on Belize despite $97 million damage, for exactly the same reason as you have given here for the lack of article for #4. What nationality was the SS Ethel Sakel? rst20xx (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not certain, but the sinking of a single ship (this was 70 years ago) doesn't make it any easier to write an article. If I really tried, I could probably scrape off a few more sentences of info and call it a GA, but surely it's more practical to simply include whatever substantial info I can find in the main article? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Support - In my opinion JC has done a good job gathering all the bits he can bearing in mind that most of the world was in the midst of WWII at the time of the events ocouring.Jason Rees (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support - I'm going to assume good faith, and believe Juliancolton when he says that there's not much more that can be said about the other storms - rst20xx (talk) 13:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - before I promote this, my inclination would be to generalise the book to one on "1941 meteorology", however at the moment the only articles on 1941 meteorology on Wikipedia are the ones included in this topic. I'm still inclined to generalise though as I expect there may well be articles on the other basins down the line, or if not then it would still be better to reflect a wider scope for the book. Does this make sense, and what other articles do you think might be created in the future? rst20xx (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's reasonable. I think we might eventually end up with articles for the Southern Hemisphere and North Indian basins assuming we can get the info. Thanks! –Juliancolton | Talk 14:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
- OK I'll do that - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Main article now an FA, so I think it's time that this is upgraded to FT. I'm not sure if this should be at /archive 2, but I put it here for now... –Juliancolton | Talk 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- ? It does it automatically - in fact, I just checked, you can see the topic just fine at WP:FT. No nomination needed. You just need to go and edit the actual topic page to change the GA symbol to a star. (I'll do it for you.) --PresN 04:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Sorry about that; I'm still not really familiar with the FT process. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've made the necessary changes (just updating the FT/GT article counts, Portal:Featured content/Topics and notifying of a new topic) rst20xx (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Sorry about that; I'm still not really familiar with the FT process. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)