Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1


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

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:14, 28 May 2008.

1987 Atlantic hurricane season
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it is ready, after 2 1/3 years of work. The article is comprehensive, although some of the sections are stubby due to lack of information and has been through copyedits over time. I finally feel that its ready for Featured Article status. Mitch 32contribs 00:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead needs to be rewritten. As it is currently, it reads more like a chronological list of storms rather than an informational lead. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten the lead and i believe that it is less confusing, and better written. Seddon69 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - It would be good to add a timeline table at the top of the storms section, as done in this article. Hello32020 (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ill get to work on that straight away. Seddon69 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I managed to get the timeline to work after a long time of playing around with it. Seddon69 (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Good job on the table. The article is comprehensive, supported by good citations, and great images, so support. Hello32020 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominators, please ask declarers to follow WP:FAC instructions. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Support- An informative article, wow, it surprised me with all the information. Images for every tropical storm, depression, and hurricane out there. Definitely ready.  Meldshal42 Hit me What I've Done 20:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Sources look good. I didn't check external links as I'm still traveling. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose Starting to look better. I still recommend getting it copyedited, as the prose is still weak in places. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support  It's not perfect, but it seems good enough to me. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose.
 * The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was considered an average hurricane season that was limited by an ongoing El Niño - I don't like the first sentence. was considered by whom? It doesn't have a source, which could be a problem. Was it really average, and if so, in what terms? I think there could be a better, different opening sentence.
 * Regarding the depressions, several of the sections are very short. Should it not be like that done in the currently featured 1983 Atlantic hurricane season?
 * The overall section on TD1 is poorly-written and has several errors. I'm a little concerned at the source for It made landfall in Florida on May 31 in the TD1 section. It does not explicitly say the depression made landfall that day, as the article was presumably published before it did so. on Monday - day of the week is not important. The statement producing thundershowers across the state on May 28 is not supported by the reference. Again, The tropical depression degenerated into a wave on June 1, the official start of the hurricane season - the ref does not say it degenerated to a wave, as it just says it weakened.
 * At 6 AM August 31 EST (in the TD 6 section). WPTC policy is to use UTC, not EST.
 * End of first paragraph of Bret needs a ref.
 * Check your Wikilinks, as several are redirects.
 * Consistency is needed for referring to millibars, as sometimes you spell it out, and other times you don't.
 * Dates need to be fixed. You currently use 1st, 2nd, 3rd, though, per WP:MOSDATE, Ordinal numbers are spelled out using the same rules as for cardinal numbers
 * Overall grammar is OK, but not good enough to pass 1a; that, combined with the sourcing problem, forces me to oppose. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Everything you listed has been fixed and/or changed. Mitch 32<sup style="color:red;">contribs 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Still some issues I'd like to be addressed. I still don't think this is worthy of being featured.
 * Sourcing is still pretty weak. I should be able to find the ref for statements at the end of a section. However, I cannot. In the TS 2 section, there is not a ref supporting the statement - "the first tropical storm warning ever issued for a tropical system". A ref placed prior to the statement says the first TS warning for the US, which is different from what's in the article. Also in the section, the statement Up to 21 inches (0.53 m) is factually incorrect, since over 21 inches were reported, per here. In the Arlene section, Small cells (small thunderstorms) is incorrect, since the source provided says nothing about the cells being small thunderstorms.
 * Prose is still weak. on the August 10, now-depression,
 * The storm was moving at 17 mph (27 km/h) to the east on August 21 - it is really confusing whether you are talking about Bret or the high pressure system; if the latter, please change, since high pressure systems are rarely considered "storms".
 * Bret never affected land during its existence - you sure about that? Sorry to be picky, but the preliminary report didn't say anything about that. Could it have affected the Cape Verde islands?
 * At 600 UTC - is that 0600 UTC, or a typo (like 1600 UTC)? When writing out UTC, be sure to use a 4 digit number.
 * 950 miles (1,529 km), 125 miles per hour (201 km/h), 95 miles per hour (153 km/h) - watch your rounding
 * peaking at 10.27 inches in... - metric unit needed
 * A tropical storm formed east of the Windward Islands on September 20... Emily strengthened into a tropical storm on September 20." Notice anything?

♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anything else? All of the above have been solved. <sup style="color:red;">Mitch <b style="color:red;">32</b><sup style="color:red;">contribs 19:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider all of the issues as having been solved. These are merely updates for my previous concerns that still haven't been dealt with. Overall I still don't think it's near FA worthy.
 * The first sentence is still awkward for opening the entire article, specifically was depicted as an average hurricane season. What really is an average season, and why is the first sentence not backed up?
 * Are there any better sources for the tropical depressions? I'm a little concerned the entire section for TD1 was written from short sections of a newspaper article, specifically in regards to its formation and dissipation. Again, the date of the week is not important, as nowhere else in the article is a date of the week mentioned. I'd also like some consistency/confirmation; the TD1 section says it stalled off the coast, then the season summary says TD1 struck Florida.
 * You removed the fact in the TS2 section that it resulted in the first TC watch/warning, but that fact still remains in the lede. I'm sure it's true, but you need a ref to support what you are writing. Also in the TS 2 section, your change from "up to 21 inches" to "more than 21 inches" is a poor change, since "more than 21 inches" could mean 48 inches, 1000 inches, etc. Why not just simply say what the peak total was?
 * Changing the ordinal numbers to spelling them out is a bit unusual, in that you only retained them in the section on TD 14. I'd like consistency, ideally using the date format used elsewhere in the article.
 * Writing is still all-around poor, and doesn't pass the "brilliantly written" criterion. Examples include was seemingly appeared unchanged,
 * Referencing is still weak. I do not understand how you are referencing the article. I assume that the ref for a statement is to occur at the end of a block of text. For example, in the Bret section, I expect the ref on the ridge information to be after that sentence. However, it is before it, for some odd reason that needs to be fixed.
 * Unit consistency is still needed. 50 miles per hour, several usages of mbar vs. millibar, some instances of in vs. inch. In the Emily section, you use or 31 m/s, though nowhere else in the article do you use that unit.
 * ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Please get someone else to run through it with a toothcomb. Here are random samples of yuckiness. A professional, "even brilliant" standard is required.
 * En dash, not hyphen, in the infobox.
 * Clumsy sentence—"with" as an awkward connector, and the hated noun plus -ing: "An average season, as defined by NOAA, has 6 to 14 named storms, with 4 to 8 of those reaching hurricane strength, and with 3 hurricanes becoming major hurricanes." Try this: "An average season, as defined by NOAA, consists of 6–14 named storms, of which 4–8 reach hurricane strength, and three become major hurricanes." "3" preceded spelt-out single-digits in the rest of the text. Try exercises here.
 * "during their durations"—ouch. TONY   (talk)  16:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.