Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Azores subtropical storm


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:26, 18 August 2008.

2005 Azores subtropical storm

 * Nominator(s):  Plasticup  T / C 

After a thorough re-writing, I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is as near to "completion" as anyone could ask for. There isn't a lot of information out there on this unnamed storm, but everything available has been assimilated into this short but comprehensive article.  Plasticup  T / C  16:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The fact that we're continuously flooding FAC with tropical cyclone articles aside, ;) sources and MoS compliance looks good. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;it reminds me of what we did with the Final Fantasy articles a couple years back. &mdash; Deckiller 07:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Short, but very well-written and detailed. Another good piece of work from the tropical cyclone/meteorology/you know what I'm talking about department. Although a few things did catch my eye.
 * Both images check out copyright-wise. Good!
 * "the system had a well-defined center convecting about a warm core—the hallmark of a subtropical storm." - Is that the proper dash/hyphen for the ocassion? And no spaces between core and the dash, and the dash and hallmark is correct? It could be, but I'm short on time and can't read through the MoS right now. Please fix if necessary.
 * In the lead (first para., last sentence), you say "No damage nor fatalities were reported." But in the "Impact, naming, and records" section, you say "No damage or fatalities were reported." - Which is correct: "Or" or "nor"? I think or is grammatically correct, but I may be wrong. Even if both are acceptable, they should be the same for consistency throughout the article.
 * All in all, very well done. This should get up to FA status in no time. Calor (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton is the resident WP:DASH expert, so if he didn't have a problem with that dash I think it's okay. And I remember looking it up when I was writing that sentence, so I believe that it is the right dash.
 * With regards to or/nor, I think that nor is correct or is correct. Again, I'm not 110% sure and a grammarian is welcome to confirm.  Plasticup  T / C  16:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I trust Juliancolton's judgment with MoS and MoS-related things. As for nor/or, well, further input from people knowledgeable in grammar would be nice, as you said. Calor (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, just confirming that those dashes are used appropriately. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The language desk says it is "or", so that's what I am going with.  Plasticup  T / C  21:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. All my issues are resolved. Support. Calor (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly opposed. Sorry, but as others have said, there are already numerous Featured Articles about storms etc. Not saying that this is a direct reason why this shouldnt be included, but it must be considered that in comparison to the other featured articles on storms, this one is extremely short and therefore obviously doesn't provide as much information as the other standard articles of the same subject. Putting this as a Featured Article would be really generous considering such. Sorry, but if its not a storm that arouses as much information, then it cant be notable enough to be exemplified as Wikipedia's best and most useful work. Domiy (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not really actionable. There is probably more information about the storm here than anywhere else, but how is that the article's fault? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 07:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the logic that there being lots of tropical cyclone FAs diminishes the quality of this article. There are lots of Movie, History, and Warfare articles too. But more importantly this complaint is not actionable.
 * As for length, there are two arguments that you could be trying to make. You could be saying that this storm does not deserve an article (in which case, if you really think that you have a case under WP:N or the like, you can boldly nominate it for deletion) or you could be saying that this article is not comprehensive (in which case I would argue that this page is the most authoritative compilation of information on this record-breaking storm).  Plasticup  T / C  10:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that an actionable oppose must "relate to WP:WIAFA and 2) specifically identify something that is possible to fix." I'm not seeing how your oppose, Domiy, applies to that at all. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it on topic please. It shouldn't how many FAs there are in a given topic. If the FAs are unbalanced, it's unfortunate, but that doesn't degrade the quality of this particular article. Not an actionable oppose. PeterSymonds (talk)  13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think that this article is too short. I would be absolutely fine with it (because it is well written etc) if there werent already numerous other FA's on the exact same subject. Furthermore, if this one could compare in content with those others. It may be possible to expand this article, see if there are any details you have left out or could possibly add in. Really, lets all think about it. If we star allowing such short articles to be added as 'Wikipedia's best content', then we would be diminishing the entire rareness and specialness of Featured Articles. There are very few of them for a reason you know! If we allow this, then it wont be fair unless we allow all the other short candidates that come up. If that continues, the Featured Article purpose won't be needed anymore because the majority of articles will already be an acceptable candidate. Look at most of the other FA's, they are all large in length and have many details to expand upon, which they do. This one is too short. It's definately worth an article, but a Featured Article? I really object. Really, we dont want to give out the idea that articles are that easy to get as an FA. This would mean everybody would think its acceptable to focus completely on one article, build it up slightly and ensure it is worded nicely and then its an FA. That is way too easy! As I said before, try to expand on it! If not, then I'm sorry, but short articles diminish the whole purpose of Featured Article content exemplifying WP's best work! It just doesnt offer as much content as you would expect or desire. Domiy (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Plasticup, also please take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Something_very_wrong_with_FAC

If that article was rejected unfairly because of some ridiculously minor issues (even though it is an extremely good article) then it would be completely unfair to allow this one again. This Zappa article at hand in the link is really good, as I responded, I have no interest in the music or the composer, but his article really got me. It just has that spark we are looking for. A few well written paragraphs with a couple of images and a max of 10 references really doesn't meet the common FA standards according to other articles. We also have to consider how likely the article is to be read. Again, this may not be a strict FA criteria but just think about it. It happened 3 years ago and as it states, there were no fatalities or major damage. It's just another one of those small things that managed to find their way on WP. Domiy (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think an article has to be big in order to be good. In my mind the FA-star indicates that the article is as close to perfect as possible. It does not indicate that the topic of that article is particularly interesting, exceptionally notable, or capable of filling a 40kb page. You are criticizing the topic of this article, not the article itself. Your argument precludes this article from ever reaching FA status, no matter how perfectly it describes its subject. Furthermore, your argument that Frank Zappa failed and therefore others should fail is bordering on the absurd. You are upset that the FAC process prevented recognition of a great article, and your solution is to oppose short FACs? I don't see the connection nor do I see how your reaction solves the problems that plagued Frank Zappa's nomination.  Plasticup  T / C  01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and could you point me to the "numerous other FA's on the exact same subject"? I wish I had seem them before—they could have saved me a lot of trouble.  Plasticup  T / C  01:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is way off topic for this page, but let's take it a point at a time:
 * I just think that this article is too short. I would be absolutely fine with it (because it is well written etc) if there werent already numerous other FA's on the exact same subject.
 * That is something that the editors of this article have no control over.
 * It may be possible to expand this article, see if there are any details you have left out or could possibly add in.
 * That's part of the point of doing this—to try to identify any possible deficiencies in the article. However, arguing for hypothetical deficiencies does nothing to help address them.
 * If we star allowing such short articles to be added as 'Wikipedia's best content', then we would be diminishing the entire rareness and specialness of Featured Articles.
 * This is not even the shortest featured article, and this has been discussed several times before: what matters is that an article is comprehensive, not long.
 * There are very few of them for a reason you know!
 * Yes, because making featured articles is hard. There's never been an FA cap.
 * If we allow this, then it wont be fair unless we allow all the other short candidates that come up.''
 * Which is already the case.
 * If that continues, the Featured Article purpose won't be needed anymore because the majority of articles will already be an acceptable candidate.
 * FA status is not a rotating trophy, as much as it is a certification.
 * Look at most of the other FA's, they are all large in length and have many details to expand upon, which they do.
 * Not really. See Hurricane Irene (2005) for another example.
 * This one is too short. It's definately worth an article, but a Featured Article? I really object.
 * Again, length has been pretty much defined to be a non-issue. What can be added to this article? Be specific.
 * Really, we dont want to give out the idea that articles are that easy to get as an FA. This would mean everybody would think its acceptable to focus completely on one article, build it up slightly and ensure it is worded nicely and then its an FA. That is way too easy!
 * Only that when articles are not fleshed out completely, and people indicate what should be added, the FACs fail. Just saying "it needs more" doesn't help focus efforts.
 * As I said before, try to expand on it!
 * As I said before, point out what can be expanded.
 * If not, then I'm sorry, but short articles diminish the whole purpose of Featured Article content exemplifying WP's best work! It just doesnt offer as much content as you would expect or desire.
 * Again, you can point out what kind of content you would expect for this article.
 * If that article was rejected unfairly because of some ridiculously minor issues (even though it is an extremely good article) then it would be completely unfair to allow this one again.''
 * What happened to that article (which happen to be actionable objections over prose and flaws with the article) has nothing to do with this article.
 * A few well written paragraphs with a couple of images and a max of 10 references really doesn't meet the common FA standards according to other articles.
 * All FAs have to meet WP:WIAFA. That's the common standard. You have failed to point out where the article fails that standard.
 * We also have to consider how likely the article is to be read. Again, this may not be a strict FA criteria but just think about it. It happened 3 years ago and as it states, there were no fatalities or major damage. It's just another one of those small things that managed to find their way on WP.
 * Since when has that been part of the FA criteria? Also, you didn't consider that this article could be used as part of a specialized encyclopedia release, such as a WikiReader. In either case, that has nothing to do with this article.
 * Overall, your objection doesn't help improve the article, so it is inactionable. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - short, yes, but comprehensive. I doubt that, as it never got to hurricane status, there is much more source material. Sceptre (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;I'll run through the article and see if I find anything that could be improved. &mdash; Deckiller 04:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;looks pretty good. I can understand why some people would object to featuring small articles (i.e. the effort involved is significantly less), but we always have to go by the standards. In this case, if it passes 1.) the inclusion policies and 2.) the FA criteria, then it can be featured. &mdash; Deckiller 07:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it makes anyone feel better, I am also working on bringing the 100+kb Hurricane Dean up to FA-status. Obviously that is taking a lot longer.  Plasticup  T / C  15:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Support I made a few tweaks, but I noticed one incorrect sentence, The newly absorbed system would separate from the dissolving frontal system and become Hurricane Vince on October 8. On October 8, Vince was a subtropical storm, not a hurricane. Other than that, the article looks good. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very true. I have changed the piped link. Subtropical Storm Vince didn't become a hurricane for several more days  Plasticup  T / C  15:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Image review, please. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One is from NASA (i.e. public domain) and the other was made by Nilfanion. I'll get someone to independently confirm.  Plasticup  T / C  18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * MODIS pic: PD-USGov-NASA; custom track map: (PD-self). Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Support small but well-formed jimfbleak (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick comments
 * as it was operationally classified as a non-tropical low. The storm developed in the eastern Atlantic Ocean out of a non-tropical low 
 * Could you rephrase, so non-tropical low isn't used twice in such a short amount of space?
 * become Hurricane Vince, which reached the Iberian Peninsula.
 * I think a better word could be used than reached
 * Quick minor note about the storm history. It says it formed near the Canary Islands, then moved northwest, but it doesn't say it turned to the northeast until after it became a subtropical depression. However, the best track has it moving northeastward throughout its lifetime. It would be nice if that was cleared up a tad. Also, perhaps explain how the front caused it to turn northeastward.
 * I think warm sector should be linked.
 * Hurricane Wilma would have been given the name Alpha: a name that, upon being retired, could not be replaced by an "alternate" Greek letter, as is the convention with names on the standard A–W list.
 * This is interesting, and maybe could be explained a tad better (I find it a bit unclear). Or, is it not appropriate for this particular article?
 * All in all looks good. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you will be satisfied with my fix on the "non-tropical low" duplication. I have also said that Hurricane Vince "affected" the Iberian Peninsula. The turn to the northeast should be a little more clear too, but the primary source itself is not entirely clear: "[...] it is estimated that the system became a subtropical depression around 0600 UTC. The depression turned northeastward [...]".
 * I don't know what to link for "warm front". Do you have any suggestions for that? And I'll work on the Wilma naming bit. My full reply on the naming issue will come below, where it was raised by Titoxd.  Plasticup  T / C  22:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Surface weather analysis, or simply Warm front. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added the wikilink. I feel quite silly having asked that.  Plasticup  T / C  00:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I didn't know that there was a warm front article until I looked at the main in the Surface weather analysis section. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note; this article is shorter than our previous shortest FA, Hurricane Irene (2005). Irene has 800 words, this has 700. Please ask our hurricane experts,  and, to specifically address 1b, comprehensive.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, despite me not being one of the aforementioned experts, I can say that because the storm never made landfall, or never directly affected land for that matter, the article is quite comprehensive as it is. I doubt there is any more information to be included. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That would help explain the difference; thanks, Julian! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What, I'm an expert now? :) Overall, there isn't much to write: the storm was described in a "oh, by the way" document published after the hurricane season, so there was no operational analysis of the storm. My only qualm with the article is the sentence that says, "Hurricane Wilma would have been given the name Alpha: a name that, upon being retired, could not be replaced by an "alternate" Greek letter, as is the convention with names on the standard A–W list.[7]". That, um, let's say, is not necessarily correct. There are no 1b concerns, though. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tito; Plasticup, can we get that sorted? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have edited it to the following: "Hurricane Wilma would have been given the name Alpha: a name that, had it been retired, could not be replaced by an "alternate" Greek letter, as is the convention with names on the standard A–W list." I don't think that conflicts with NHC page you linked, which says: "At present there are no plans to retire letters of the Greek alphabet from the list, but if a very bad hurricane occurs with a Greek letter name, this may have to be revised". Wilma, being the most intense Atlantic hurricane ever, certainly counts as a very bad hurricane. That said, I am still open to suggestion if you have a concern about this sentence.  Plasticup  T / C  00:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the "alternate letter" and "alternate name" is enough to fix it, although a reference to the AOML FAQ after ref 7 might help clear the confusion. I would also link "retired" to either Tropical cyclone naming or Lists of tropical cyclone names, by the way. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's certainly no harm in adding that extra reference. As for the wikilink on "retired", I added one to List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. The lead there is quite informative.  Plasticup  T / C  02:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All right. Support. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.