Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Emily (1987)/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 Karanacs 20:26, 25 August 2009.

Hurricane Emily (1987)

 * Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all FA requirements. I've thoroughly searched for information regarding this storm and I believe there is no more I can add to the article. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the lead:
 * Hurricane Emily was the only major hurricane to develop during the inactive 1987 Atlantic hurricane season. - The season wasn't entirely void of storms, though this seems to imply it was.
 * Changed inactive to below-average Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Forming out of a tropical disturbance off the west coast of Africa on September 20 - It didn't develop off the coast of Africa, it moved off the coast of Africa.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The following day the final advisory was issued on the storm as it transitioned into an extratropical cyclone while tracking in an unusually fast motion. - What kind of advisory? Also, the part about the fast motion could probably be removed.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Three people were killed by the storm and damages amounted to $30 million. - "By the storm" is redundant.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In Bermuda, due to the unexpected intensification, severe damage took place. - Change to "unexpected intensification of the storm".
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the damage caused by Emily, the name was not retired and remains on the list of names for Atlantic hurricanes. - No need for "caused by Emily".
 * Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

– Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hyphenation
 * The hyphenation in the article is a bit odd in a few places. Some examples:


 * the storm quickly attained hurricane-status - Is this hyphen needed? Is "hurricane-status" supposed to be hyphenated in this way?
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gradual intensification took place throughout September 20, with the depression attaining tropical storm-status by 1800 UTC - Same. Can be fixed by rewording: "attaining the status of tropical storm" is my suggestion.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * By 0600 UTC, Emily had re-attained hurricane-status - Same.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon attaining major hurricane status, a hurricane warning was declared for northern Haiti as the storm was anticipated to maintain hurricane-intensity through landfall - Same.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in all these cases the offending hyphens should be deleted, unless this is specifically how the hyphenation works with hurricane terminology. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 09:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support. And not so uncomfortable about the length as with the previous nomination.
 * I agree about the hyphens (except perhaps for "re-attained").
 * Is Africa worth linking? I can't see what is sufficiently relevant or useful to almost all readers. The map in the "Africa" article doesn't even relate to the route of the hurricane as shown in the current article. And paleo this and etymology that, it just doesn't grab the readers, who will be irritated by clicking on it. "Atlantic Ocean" ... I didn't visit that link, but I"m wondering who doesn't know what it is and where it is, since it's pretty obvious from the text. Direct me, please, towards the Windward Islands, Dominican Republic and Bermuda, I guess, undiluted by the hopelessly large and vague.
 * I de-linked Africa but I'm a bit confused what you're trying to convey here. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You may wish to take a look at WP:LINK, specifically "What not to link", and let me know if you think the (established) guideline is unclear or needs to be changed. Feedback is welcome. Tony   (talk)  13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A little uncomfortable at "damages" ... "damage"; but slightly unsure.
 * Changed the second damage to impact Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not pipe-link "name" rather than "retired" to the article "Tropical cyclone naming"? More obvious.
 * "name" refers to Emily, so linking retired seems better Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A few "with plus noun plus -ing" urchins; if not ungrammatical, they are almost always replaceable by neater grammar. Please check my changes in this respect.
 * "rapid intensification" linked again? If you want close contrast with "explosive intensification", that might be a rare justification for linking the second, not the first instance. Unsure. Please see WP:LINK. There are other needless multiple links.
 * It's linked twice because explosive intensification is much more sudden than rapid intensification Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Shortly thereafter"—try plain and simple: "Soon after,".
 * Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * To avoid the disliked "th", I'd rephrase this: "throughout the rest of September 25 into the 26 with increasing speed". "into the following day"?
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comma would be nice to separate two adjacent nouns: "Interacting with a baroclinic zone the hurricane completed its".
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "On September 21, as Tropical Storm Emily quickly approached the Windward Islands, a tropical storm warning was issued for"—do you prefer this, as smoother? "As Tropical Storm Emily quickly approached the Windward Islands on September 21, a tropical storm warning was issued for"
 * Changed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some editors say to avoid "as", since it's poorly designed in English: "Upon attaining major hurricane status, a hurricane warning was declared for northern Haiti as the storm was anticipated to maintain hurricane-intensity through landfall. Later that day, a hurricane watch was issued for the southeastern Bahamas and the Turks and Caicos Islands. This watch was later upgraded to a warning as the storm was expected to regain intensity over the Bahamas." Are these two ases "because" or "while/during"? I'd use "since" or "because" alternately if so. There are more of them below.
 * Has this been addressed? Tony   (talk)  13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit informal: "Upwards of 3 in (76 mm) of rain"—"More than 3 inches ..."
 * I'm a bit confused what you mean Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Upwards of 3 in" should be changed to "More than 3 in". – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That changes the meaning of the sentence (unless I messed up the definition of upwards) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm nearly certain they have identical meanings. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dur, I messed up the meaning of the word. I thought it meant up to not more than. I've fixed that error now Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove "occurring"?
 * From where? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd just use the finder; it's easy to locate—took me five seconds, including typing (para starts "in the Dominican ...". Do you agree that the word is redundant? Tony  (talk)  13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "rainfall of up to ..."
 * I'm a bit confused what you mean Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "of" is redundant, and should therefore be removed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No wonder I couldn't find it, it was already changed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was being vague; I think "of" should be added, but it's no big deal. Tony   (talk)  13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove the second "power" in that sentence. (" Before the storm's landfall, officials in Bermuda cut power to roughly 90% of the island to protect the power grid.")
 * Inflation-equivalent $ given once, but not subsequently.
 * Do you want me to add inflated values for all damages? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Errrr, unsure, but you hurricane/cyclone guys often translate all damages into modern costs. While there are opponents of this practice on the basis that it's hard to compare across what are essentially quite different cost structures and economies, the same economy over just a few decades is OK by me. It just stood out as an inconsistency—I'm happy if you discuss it at some stage at your WikiProject.


 * "reportedly" ... you'd say this if you as author weren't entirely endorsing what is referenced at the end of the sentence anyway. Tony   (talk)  11:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no confirmed reports of tornadoes on the island so they're just reported Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that in the hurricane field the distinction was made between a report and a confirmed report. It would be interesting to know what is required for confirmation (presumably the central government meteorological agency does the confirming). Would it be awkward to explicitly write "There were unconfirmed reports of ...", etc? Perhaps it would be tedious to read, but a reference number and the word "report" seems tautological. Two instances, both in "Impact and aftermath". You might be willing to raise it as an issue at the WikiProject. Let me know if you do. Tony   (talk)  13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Using "unconfirmed" should be ok, especially since it wasn't explicitly confirmed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence in question Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The unfortunate advice at MoS against forcing larger sizes on thumbnail images has been removed, and not a second too soon. Without your prefs set, you'll see that our readers are faced with tiny tiny images that mean little on the page. You might consider enlarging all from "The eye ..." onwards, to bring out the drama of the text. "Rainfall totals" looks like a screen-shot from a crude computer game. The ungainly wrapping of captions should be fixed by bigger images, too. Tony   (talk)  13:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put in 200px to the images now, hopefully that fixed the issue. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments – Reliability of sources looks fine to me, and they check out on the link checker. Reference 18 needs a publisher (The Bulletin), but formatting is okay otherwise.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 03:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.