Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Esther (1961)

Hurricane Esther (1961)
Self-nomination. I've done quite a bit of work bringing this article back from the dead, and with help, it's gone from start-class to A-class despite not having a lot of information to work with. Hurricanehink suggested I put it up for FAC, which definitely has to count for something. :D Any comments? --Core des at talk. o.o;; 00:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good :) Support. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: this article is quite short for a featured article. I'm not sure how comprehensive a 15 kB article can be (knowing nothing about hurricanes, I can't suggest much), is there nothing else that could be included? I think you could probably expand most sections (a couple are just a few sentences long). You could add sections detailing aftermath and recovery - did every community recover from the economic and cultural damage done by the hurricane? How did the (inter-)national news cover the story? Have any works of fiction (film, literature, &c.) mentioned/used the hurricane? How did the authorities handle the situation and what did politicians say? --Oldak Quill 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there was little in the way of aftermath. The hurricane did little in terms of impact. What's in the article has about all of the existing information of the hurricane from the Internet. It might be a little short, but it is comprehensive about the topic. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 12:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, you have to consider that the storm occured four and a half decades ago, so there isn't as much information about the storm available as for modern storms. Tito xd (?!?) 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - article is well organized and cited but it is too short and lacking; if it is expanded, it defintely should be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoOdCoNtEnT (talk • contribs)
 * Support There isn't a minimum length requirement for featured articles is there? I thought the article seemed very comprehensive for a storm that occurred 45 years ago. --Nebular110 21:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Not comprehensive. Sections like "Impact" seem underdeveloped. If there isn't any information on the internet, then try and read some books instead. --Maitch 04:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This objection is too vague to be actionable - what exactly is missing? Raul654 04:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Object This is a "sentence" in the lead: The first, on Nantucket Island, as a rapidly weakening Category 3 hurricane, and the other, in Maine, as it was losing its tropical characteristics.  Please identify the subject and predicate: maybe it's just me :-)  Sandy 03:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I just fixed that. :) --Core des at talk. o.o;; 04:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just came by for a second look, saw this: The depression moved northwestward into a region were conditions for development were favorable and began to rapidly intensify, becoming Tropical Storm Esther the next day.[1]  Sandy 00:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Also fixed. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Another look today: Hurricane Esther was also one of the first targets of a Navy experiment in modifying or weakening hurricanes by seeding them. On September 16, a Navy plane flew into the eye of Esther about 400 miles (645 km) northeast of Puerto Rico, and began to drop silver iodide crystals into the storm.[11] Is the "also" necessary?  Is the "began to" necessary?  They both seem redundant.  I also saw a very short section (Lack of retirement):  does it need a separate section?  I hope the text can get a thorough copyedit by someone unfamiliar with the text.  Sandy 11:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 *  Weak Support It is very detailed and it covers most hurricane topics (history,preperation,impact and aftermath). It is however not as long as most featured articles or other articles on hurricanes (see Hurricane Ivan. User:wwicki 15 July 2006.
 * It might not be as long as Ivan, which isn't even an FA, but Ivan did a lot more and was more recent. Compare Esther to Irene or John, which are FA's despite not having a very long article. This article covers about everything that Esther did, making it comprehensive despite not being very long. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, one can see that that John and Irene are short,recent and detailed. However it is still shorter than the absolute majority of the featured articles.There are no seperate standards for articles about hurricanes to become featured. It says on the featured artcle criteria that the article must be of "appropriate" length. That isn't defined any further. If it isn't defined it is always an option to comparing it and the articles on the other two hurricanes mentioned above to most FA'S which would make them all seem short. I'm just saying we should take this into consideration. You are right about not comparing it to Ivan though. User:wwicki

The below is copied from Irene's FAC, where it was mistakenly placed: —Cuivi é nen 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's better-written than most FACs, but still needs a run-through by a copy-editor who has the advantage of unfamiliarity with the text. Here are examples from the top. Tony 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Esther spent its lifetime as an offshore storm"—Having just announced that Esther was a storm, here there are three redundant words, not all of them contiguous.
 * "The hurricane caused $6 million (1961 USD, $37.4 million 2005 USD) in damage"—Good to provide the inflationed equivalent, but can it be done more smoothly? What about: "The hurricane caused US$6 million in damage (~ 37.4 million 2005 USD)".
 * "an area with the potential for"—Better as "a potential area for".
 * "Intensification within the tropical storm continued at a quick pace, and Esther reached hurricane strength early on 12 September.[1] Esther then turned westward in response to a high pressure ridge over the central Atlantic. The hurricane continued to intensify rapidly, becoming a major hurricane on 13 September.[2] For the next four days, Esther intensified more slowly". There are three references to intensification here. Can the middle one be removed as assumed in the context? That is, "over the central Atlantic, becoming a major ...".
 * "Another trough pulled Esther northwestward then northward"—Get rid of the two "ward"s?
 * Good points. I'll fix those soon. Tito xd (?!?) 00:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Irene ;) --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That explains why I couldn't find those sentences... :P Tito xd (?!?) 02:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, poor Tito :) --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object if I moved the above set of comments up to the Esther nom, where they were clearly meant to be? —Cuivi é nen 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not at all. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do. No wonder the edit history on Esther confused me.  Sandy 03:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, the only thing I didn't do was to remove the 1961 USD reference, as we do need the years to run the GDP deflator, and it is not always clear if the source we are using for the number is already adjusted for inflation to another year with just a quick glance. What does everyone think? Tito xd (?!?) 02:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to note that references on this were quite good (I had the results of a citation spot check all typed up, but then my power failed and I lost it). So, good work on that. --RobthTalk 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)