Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Hernan (2008)/archive2


 * 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 19:58, 8 November 2008.

Hurricane Hernan (2008)

 * Nominator(s): User:Cyclonebiskit
 * previous FAC (22:20, 18 October 2008)

I am re-nominating this article for Featured status because I believe it has met the recommendations given by reviewers in the previous FAC. There is one thing which would (I think) normally quick-fail an article, an edit war. There was a brief edit war earlier today in which I reverted six edits made by Yellow Evan. This little quarrel was quickly fixed and the article has been unprotected since it was a misunderstanding on both our parts (mainly mine). Both of our intents were the same, to re-nominate this article for FAC. Please understand that the small edit war was a once only thing, and has not happened on a regular basis with this article. Hopefully this explanation will prevent this article from quick-failing. All thoughts and comments are welcome :) thanks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I think someone needs to work at copyediting the article. I found three copyedit errors in just a quick glance at it, so I think that there might be wise to see if there's more, Metros (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I supported the failed FAC of this article, and the issues have been addressed. Hernan is definitely ready for FA now. (In fact, see this; I was planning on nominating this in the near future!) --Dylan620 ( Home •  yadda yadda yadda  •  Ooooohh! ) 22:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, criteria 1E. Sorry, but I can't support an article whose stability is significantly compromised by way of an edit war. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)  withdrawn oppose per discussion with SandyGeorgia –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  14:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You can't support even though the edit war was basically just a misunderstanding? Regardless, any thoughts on the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm afraid that even if the edit war is considered a misunderstanding, it was still an edit war that forced a brief protection, which brings up the question about future stability. If there is definite evidence that such misunderstandings and ultimately edit wars will not occur in the future, I'll reconsider. Cheers, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just found some information regarding Hernan's remnant moisture affecting Hawaii, so you might want to make sure my addition conforms to your writing style. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I've already gone over how Yellow Evan and I should deal with this type of thing in the future, since he's still learning how to correctly edit articles, I've asked that he contact me before he makes an edit to this article, thus avoiding any unnecessary edits leading to an edit war. This is also my first incident with excessive reverts and hopefully my last. If Evan doesn't contact me before making an edit I'll contact him of such and see how to get around multiple reverts. This should prevent edit wars on our part. Also, he just wanted to get this article to FA, so I think when/if it passes, he'll be less intent on adding to the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That means hernan is not a fishspinner after all. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 01:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think this article fails the FA criterion due to #4 - length, which is defined as "[staying] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." I personally think the meteorological history is far too long, as some of the sentences just provide needless details. I see several instances of redundancies - for example "Later in the morning, the center of Hernan was determined to be located underneath the eye and was determined to have become a hurricane, the fifth of the season, at 8 a.m. (PST) on August 8." The inclusion of the post-analysis data should be more seamlessly incorporated. I also have an issue with the inclusion of the Accumulated Cyclone Energy, particularly by citing the TCR which does not mention ACE once. The WPTC has more or less agreed not to have individual values for ACE (see WT:WPTC and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 14); if you disagree with that, then maybe another discussion is in order, since the last two never got a great consensus. Little comment: the Infobox should reflect the storm affecting Hawaii (it currently reads "no land areas"). ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * True, It is the same size as Hurricane Ioke. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 04:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ioke was a Category 5 hurricane, set numerous records, and lasted much longer than this storm. Plus, I thought you were on break ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm....The MH is basically the heart of this article, to shorten it, I would have to sandbox it for a few days to rewrite the entire thing because it is based off of the advisories. However, since I based it off the advisories, I did make changes where necessary per the TCR. For the ACE, there is a source for the operational ACE, an NCDC page which gives the basic statistics for the season including the ACE based public advisories. The only downside is that they do not update it when the Best Track data is released, thus forcing us to resort to minor OR. I'm not really sure what else to say about the length though, caught me off guard to say the least. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I realize such a major change would be needed. It is my own opinion, and it's up to you to decide whether or not to ignore it. However, I feel strongly that there are places of redundancies/too much detail. Imagine a laymen reading it - would they be able to read through the entire article, or would they stop with the massive amount of information? Regarding the ACE, you didn't answer my comment that the WPTC has agreed in general to not have the ACE at all. I'm not sure if I have a bigger problem with the minor OR by sourcing the TCR, or the fact it is there in the first place. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ioke has less info than Hernan and true I am on break I am just returning for a short while. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 04:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to the ACE, I'm actually not sure myself. I did think it over for a bit, and I think that unless there is a reliable source which has the ACE from the best track, it should be removed per WPTC. I do see what you mean about the amount of information regarding this storm, but I had a big interest in tropical cyclones and it's hard for me to weed out information (it's hard for me in general, I can't highlight assignments for my life sadly). In an article of greater importance, a shorter MH is probably necessary, but this is a very minor storm in which most people who read it either just stumble across it, or have an interest in the storm. The amount of detail gives them a full history of the storm, leaving no gaps in wanting information since by definition a "Low-importance" article is usually created out of personal interest. Not quite sure if that sentence makes complete sense but I don't know how to word it otherwise. I'll try my best to pick out the highly unnecessary information to attempt to shorten it, but if it doesn't need to be rewritten to be acceptable I'd much rather not go through writing this article all over again, since last time it took way too much time, and now Quarterly exams are approaching and I have less time to devote to expanding/updating articles. I hope that clarifies things a bit better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let the ACE issue slide for the moment, since it appears the project might agree to get rid of it in general. However, I stand by the article being too long. As far as I know, there is not another featured tropical cyclone article with as long of a meteorological history as this one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I've read the article over and I agree with Hurricanehink; the meteorological history is exceedingly long. But if there's any way I can help assure this article will be featured, please drop a note on my talk page. --Dylan620 ( Home •  yadda yadda yadda  •  Ooooohh! ) 10:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's two oppose who say the MH is exceedingly long and one who's undecided. I guess I'll probably have to sandbox this eventually. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Then, we will move are current MH to Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 13:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt that that is necessary. MH subpages are kept for storms which are long lived or cause a great deal of impact and the MH section in the main article needs to be shortened. With Hernan, it doesn't meet either of those qualifications and the subpage shouldn't be made. The section just needs to be shortened. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, while Hurricanehink does bring up a fair argument, I'm not too concerned about the MH being too long. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

True but the purpose of the criteria  is too make shore that it is not the size is not like Tropical Storm Erick (2007). it did not pass because it is so short. Delete the part about Norbert Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would the part about Norbert need to be removed? It's rather important concerning the intensity of the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The is say about Rita being stronger than Katrina in Hurricane Katrina. No. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox[ 15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't really compare storm article to storm article. Especially since each person has their own writing style. Also, it is included,
 * "The pressure measurement made Katrina the fourth most intense Atlantic hurricane on record at the time, only to be surpassed by Hurricanes Rita and Wilma later in the season; it was also the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Gulf of Mexico at the time (a record also later broken by Rita)."
 * It's near the end of the MH section on the main article page. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.