| Revision as of 01:39, 11 May 2006 editRyanGerbil10 (talk | contribs)19,082 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:55, 11 May 2006 edit undoBunchofgrapes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,802 edits →[]: Changed the grounds for my objection after some thoughtNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| ** Last time I checked, article size was not a requirement for featured article status; ] states that the article has to be "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," and that is what the article does. As several editors commented on ], an article's size or scope was not a disqualifying condition for FAC, but rather its quality. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | ** Last time I checked, article size was not a requirement for featured article status; ] states that the article has to be "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," and that is what the article does. As several editors commented on ], an article's size or scope was not a disqualifying condition for FAC, but rather its quality. ]]<sup>(] - ])</sup> 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *** There's no fixed length that an FA has to exceed, but I really just don't think something so short, on an unremarkable storm, can be said to exemplify 'our very best work' as required by FA criterion 1. ] 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | *** There's no fixed length that an FA has to exceed, but I really just don't think something so short, on an unremarkable storm, can be said to exemplify 'our very best work' as required by FA criterion 1. ] 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Object'''. In my opinion, the sources this article is based upon are insufficient for this to be an FA. The NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report is the single significant source used by the article; the others are four brief NHC bulletins and one small news article. —] (]) 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | *<s>'''Object'''. In my opinion, the sources this article is based upon are insufficient for this to be an FA. The NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report is the single significant source used by the article; the others are four brief NHC bulletins and one small news article. —] (]) 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)</s> I've had second thought about this particular objection. See below. —] (]) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **We could use news stories for the sourcing for the storm history; but they would only be based on NHC data and it would be inaccurate as a result (the TCR is different from the at-the-time data).--] (]) 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | **We could use news stories for the sourcing for the storm history; but they would only be based on NHC data and it would be inaccurate as a result (the TCR is different from the at-the-time data).--] (]) 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| *'''Support'''. The only ''actionable'' thing I can think of is to get permission to use a picture of the surf (see the external link). I don't see why a short article, as long as it is complete, cannot exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work; IMO some of the best articles in paper encyclopedias are short.--] (]) 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Support'''. The only ''actionable'' thing I can think of is to get permission to use a picture of the surf (see the external link). I don't see why a short article, as long as it is complete, cannot exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work; IMO some of the best articles in paper encyclopedias are short.--] (]) 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Technical Support.''' The requirements are met, but the article still seems to be lacking something. ]]] 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | *'''Technical Support.''' The requirements are met, but the article still seems to be lacking something. ]]] 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Object'''. My objection above -- this article has basically one source -- was a namby-pamby attempt to dance around my real issue with this article becoming an FA. It hinted at it though: the reason there is only one source regarding this hurricane is that this hurricane is not notable. I know: notability isn't an FA criteria. There is an unwritten policy, though -- I believe Raul654 will back me up on this -- that any article that can survive AfD can in theory become an FA. Here's where I'm going to make people mad: I do not believe that this article should survive a (hypothetical) AfD. It describes a weather system that had essentially no impact whatsoever. It is a tree falling in the forest, heard only by forecasters at the National Hurricane Center. It should be merged to ] or some article like that. It should not be an FA because it should not be an article on its own. —] (]) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:55, 11 May 2006
Hurricane Irene (2005)
Self-nom, as this is yet another article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. However, this article is slightly different from the rest: the hurricane did not make landfall. In spite of that fact, the article is comprehensive on everything else, and we believe it meets featured article criteria, so we're giving it a shot, to also know how to prepare non-landfalling storms in the future. Titoxd 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe combine the "Impact" and "Records and Naming" sections? They're quite stubby. Kirill Lokshin 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object - it's only just over 8kb in length, and I don't believe such a short article can really represent the 'very best of Misplaced Pages'. It's a fine short article - listed at Misplaced Pages:Good articles and exactly the sort of thing that should be listed there - but I don't think it's substantial enough to be featurable. Worldtraveller 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, article size was not a requirement for featured article status; WP:WIAFA states that the article has to be "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," and that is what the article does. As several editors commented on Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles, an article's size or scope was not a disqualifying condition for FAC, but rather its quality. Titoxd 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- There's no fixed length that an FA has to exceed, but I really just don't think something so short, on an unremarkable storm, can be said to exemplify 'our very best work' as required by FA criterion 1. Worldtraveller 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Last time I checked, article size was not a requirement for featured article status; WP:WIAFA states that the article has to be "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," and that is what the article does. As several editors commented on Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles, an article's size or scope was not a disqualifying condition for FAC, but rather its quality. Titoxd 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Object. In my opinion, the sources this article is based upon are insufficient for this to be an FA. The NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report is the single significant source used by the article; the others are four brief NHC bulletins and one small news article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)I've had second thought about this particular objection. See below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)- We could use news stories for the sourcing for the storm history; but they would only be based on NHC data and it would be inaccurate as a result (the TCR is different from the at-the-time data).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- The above are valid points, and could potentially stop this from becoming an FA. I'll go point by point on the Featured Article Criteria. 1) It's hard to exemplify the best work when it is this short, so I'll ignore this for now. 2) It's well written, comprehensive for such a storm, referenced, neutral, and is very stable. 3) Styling is fine. 4) There's three images, possibly too few, but images aren't a requirement. 5) It's tightly focused on the storm, and, obviously, not too long. Currently, I'm neutral. The main reason why this FAC is important is how to better all TC articles. Recently, all storms in 2005 were given articles, including non-landfalling storms like Irene. Comments would be greatly appreciated on this type of storm so we know what to do for the other articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think the article is a fine short article. The only thing I don't like, and it's something I don't like about all the hurricane articles I've seen recently, is the link to the portal. I've seen links to portals from the article about the portal's theme, but never so many from articles that fall within a portal's scope. It seems to me like such widespread self-referencing should be avoided. Worldtraveller 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The only actionable thing I can think of is to get permission to use a picture of the surf (see the external link). I don't see why a short article, as long as it is complete, cannot exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work; IMO some of the best articles in paper encyclopedias are short.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Technical Support. The requirements are met, but the article still seems to be lacking something. RyanGerbil10 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
- Object. My objection above -- this article has basically one source -- was a namby-pamby attempt to dance around my real issue with this article becoming an FA. It hinted at it though: the reason there is only one source regarding this hurricane is that this hurricane is not notable. I know: notability isn't an FA criteria. There is an unwritten policy, though -- I believe Raul654 will back me up on this -- that any article that can survive AfD can in theory become an FA. Here's where I'm going to make people mad: I do not believe that this article should survive a (hypothetical) AfD. It describes a weather system that had essentially no impact whatsoever. It is a tree falling in the forest, heard only by forecasters at the National Hurricane Center. It should be merged to Non-landfall hurricanes of 2005 or some article like that. It should not be an FA because it should not be an article on its own. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)