Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Andrew/archive3


 * 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 10:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC).

Hurricane Andrew

 * Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article has failed twice and was not Today's Feature Article on August 24, 2012 (20th anniversary of landfall in Florida). However, that does not mean that this article hasn't improved since last time. During the last seven months, I worked to fix the issues brought up last time and got this article to GA back in February. Let me introduce to you, Hurricane Andrew. Back in 1992, Andrew struck South Florida and wracking up $26.5 billion in damage, it was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, until Katrina, Ike, and Sandy. The article lacks little, if any significant details about impact and aftermath from this devastating storm. There is also much info regarding Meteorological history, though luckily it should be simple enough for the "average Joe" to read. Feel free to comment below if you disagree with my opinion that this article should be considered among Wikipedia's best work. Last but not least, this is a WikiCup nomination. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: 12george1. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage You have some reference format inconsistencies to start with. None of these should be difficult fixes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See #8 (semicolons between authors) vs. #11 (commas between authors).
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, many of your authors are first last but a few are last, first (#21 and #22, at least).
 * References #21 and #22 are the only two that are last, first. However, they cannot be fixed because they are in a template.--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Not going to make you start a template war. I'm sad that not everything will match, but for obvious reasons, I won't oppose for this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You identify the GIF file format for reference #18, but not for #25 and #26 (and there may be others).
 * My bad, I didn't know that cite news included a format parameter. Oh, and the format for advisories and discussion by NHC is TXT.--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference #41 has a "p.", but no page number.
 * That's because that reference is in cite book and the url is the page it is on. Don't ask me, it wasn't my idea to have the WPC references like that.--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've boldly converted it to cite web. Regardless of any other issues, it's certainly not a book source. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You wikilink most newspapers in your references, but not The Miami Herald.
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

But I think you're also short on comprehensiveness. There's a lot of scholarly material out there on this major historic storm that's not touched on at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There was a great deal of attention paid to PTSD caused by this storm's damage, especially in children and adolescents. There are probably a dozen journal articles on the subject, which isn't even mentioned here.
 * Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't touch on meta-analysis of the cleanup efforts. Perhaps incorporate material from:
 * Andrew's damage pattern differed from most other hurricanes, with substantial damage caused by the east side of the eyewall. The eyewall/damage pattern relationship was the subject of some evaluation. See
 * Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly mention the ecological damage Andrew inflicted, and its subsequent recovery, as well? For example, (but there are others here, too):
 * Comment - According to User:Citation bot, the field "|publisher=" is repeated in some references. FallingGravity (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Minor quibble - nine (9) instances in References sect of error messages, for example, "More than one of |work= and |newspaper= specified". These should probably be easy fixes that will make things easier in the future for WP:V confirmation. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

(having stumbled here from my FAC) Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia of this important and educational quality improvement project, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by Cirt
 * 1) Thirteen (13) uses of word "also", three (3) uses of "however", seven (7) uses of "though" - might be worth doing a check to see if these can be removed or at least minimized.
 * 2) Aftermath - one-sentence-long-paragraph ends the entirety of the article, at end of this sect. Could this be either merged up somewheres, or perhaps expanded upon?
 * 3) See also - the Wikimedia Commons sisterlink should be moved to an External links sect, perhaps with a few useful external links like government info or science websites.
 * 4) See also - might be helpful to have a few more useful links here to other related articles here, or certainly at the very least, a couple more portals. :)
 * 5) Sorry not sure what the MOS is for this, but the term "United States" in full is used twice in subsection headers, might this be better as just "U.S."?
 * 6) Aftermath - the "see also" link at the top of this sect only really refers to that last bottom sentence, and it's already included in the See also sect, suggest just trimming it from here and leaving in See also sect, instead.
 * 7) Impact sect = the table, it should be noted according to what year of dollars this is in. (due to inflation of currency).
 * 8) Aftermath sect - phrase "began pouring in", 2nd paragraph, would be less POV to say, "began to arrive", or something like that.
 * Everything should be fixed. As for the first issues, the word "also" is actually used only three times, because you accidentally counted the "Also a good article header", "See also" (both on the table of contents and section header), and it a reference title. "However" has been cut to only 2 uses, and there is only 4 uses of "though"--12george1 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support, looks a bit better, thanks for the responsiveness to my comments, above. Good luck, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment In my view the lead wasn't written in a way that would make clear to the casual reader the aspects that made this storm particularly notable. I have added an introductory paragraph at the top in hopes of addressing that need. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid that after six weeks this nom hasn't generated the level of commentary or support one might've expected, so I'll be archiving it shortly. It may benefit from a peer review during the minimum two-week break that FAC requires between archiving and renominating another article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.