Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane John (1994)

Hurricane John (1994)
Self-nom on behalf of the Tropical cyclones WikiProject. I've done much of the writing on this article, and I think it's finally ready for FAC. The storm is notable despite not making landfall (far more so than Hurricane Irene (2005), which drew some criticism here for possibly not meeting the notability criterion) and the article is well-written and well-sourced (in my biased opinion). The article has had a peer review and has been assessed as A-class by the WikiProject. There's not much more to say, I think. — C uivi é nen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 02:46 UTC '''


 * Support. However, the storm history is a little long. It could use a minor copyedit. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. While having two FACs at the same time was not in the plan, this article is quite comprehensive and concise at the same time. Good job. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 02:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Article seems way too short for the subject it covers. — Wackymacs 07:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually thought the opposite, as the storm never really affected land, so there weren't many preparations possible, nor there was aftermath after landfall. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not all hurricanes did enough to have a long article. The storm is notable, but only for its records. It barely impacted land at all and caused no death or serious destruction. — C uivi é nen on Tuesday, 6 June 2006 at 12:02 UTC '''
 * It may be difficult to expand this article, I understand that; But it is not the length that an average FA is. Not every article is sufficient to become an FA, most often because of the subject matter. In this case, there just isn't enough to write about. — Wackymacs 15:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally think that all articles can achieve FA, maybe having a criteria such as length isn't a good idea if the coverage includes everything. Lincher 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, its comphrensive and an appropriate length- what FA requires.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, right on John! íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 20:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as per nom. Lincher 21:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as I did with Hurricane Irene. I simply can't see how a short article on a storm that didn't do very much can be considered to represent the very best work that Wikipedia can produce.  I just don't think it remotely compares to most other featured articles.  If very short articles on extremely minor topics continue to get featured I feel that the motivation to work on long articles on significant topics will suffer.  I also feel that the hurricane articles are beginning to look extremely formulaic.  It's good to see a large number of articles being raised to high standards but they could really do with being a bit more varied.  Finally, I'm concerned that pretty much everyone voting here is a member of the project which this is a nomination on behalf of.  Worldtraveller 09:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about that latter point too - that is a little worrying. Hurricane articles are always going to be fairly formulaic as the variety comes from the impact information not the rest of the info (and with minimal impact the basic formula is all that is there); for ease of use a consistent format is probably more valuable than real variety. Question, how exactly do short articles becoming featured detract from the motivation to improve large articles?-Nilfanion (talk)
 * Sorry, but I agree with Worldtraveller here. It's great that people are trying to improve articles, but this would best suit WP:GA. As I said before, not every single article on Wikipedia can become featured.— Wackymacs 10:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but I would like to get the answer to my question, if only to understand the logic behind it (which I cannot see). In fact, IMO denying featured status to short articles is worse than the converse - because GA is a lower standard than FA. Why improve beyond the GA requirements (which are weaker than FA's) if you can't obtain the "higher" status?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, here we run into wider problems. If you compare WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA they are extremely similar.  GA was supposed to be a kind of FA for short articles but has evolved away from that.  I don't think short articles represent the very best of Wikipedia but I do think that there are tens of thousands of subjects that deserve an excellent short article.  With Irene, several people said it shouldn't appear on the main page, which to me suggested that they agreed it was not representative of the very best.
 * As for motivation, the time it takes to write a 10kb excellent article is considerably less than a third of the time it takes to write a 30kb article. If 'easy' articles are becoming FAs, that does make me wonder why I bother writing long ones.  Why spend many days getting Venus up to FA standards, when Maat Mons could be made FA (if Irene has genuinely set a precedent) with far less work?  It seems to me that the cyclones project itself is evidence of this - lots of short, formulaic articles about minor storms, but articles covering the very important topics like tropical cyclone, storm surge, cyclone etc have not been given the same attention.  Worldtraveller 11:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you write featured articles only for the trophy of having written featured articles? That's surely an improper motivation that should be discouraged. In any case, I think you are also wrong to assume that the Wikiproject focuses only on minor articles; Hurricane Katrina has been given more attention than any other article. In any case, your concerns seem to be more about Irene, which is fine (and I agree with some of them), but please do not let concerns about Irene spill over into other FACs. As I stated in the opening, this is not a minor storm, though it did little damage. — C uivi é nen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 14:03 UTC '''
 * I write articles generally. I nominate for featured status ones that I consider to represent the very best of Wikipedia, as required by the FA criteria.  I write lots of articles that I consider to be of high quality but which I could not possibly claim were among the very best - things like Boltysh crater, Maat Mons, Caloris Basin.  They're comprehensive, but I can't possibly consider them in the same bracket as FAs like Eldfell or Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9.  I am objecting to this article for the same reason - I just can't see how it can be considered the very best of Wikipedia.  The fact that the short hurricane articles are extremely formulaic suggests that the storms themselves are not particularly notable.  Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Does Maat Mons as a FA worry you? I look forward to that, even if it gets to be FA years before Venus. Yes, of course it's easier to get something to FA if it's a less important topic. (And let me point out, Worldtraveller, that you are not known for writing "long" articles at all&mdash;you write short articles where there should be long ones, and then try to put them through FAC. Who is really interested in the quality of the product here?) Everyking 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Curious that you should support the nominations for Irene and this when you repeatedly oppose my FAC nominations saying they're too short. Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he is saying that in his opinion those articles are too short for their subjects whereas this article is appropriate in length for the much more minor topic it covers.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I believe it's because Everyking has a long-standing grudge against me. He opposes my nominations because he doesn't like me - he freely admits to ignorance of their subject matter.  Sadly I suspect he supported Irene and is supporting this just because I've opposed.  Worldtraveller 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nilfanion has it right. I support or oppose not based on the length itself, but on whether the coverage is complete. I would love for this article to be longer, but apparently there is simply nothing more to say. For your articles, though, there's always tons more to say&mdash;you just have a philosophical objection (deletionism) to saying it. Everyking 00:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You've never been able to point out even one tiny fact that's missing from an article I've written. If you haven't opposed on length, why have your oppose votes said 'too short'?  Worldtraveller 07:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Too short for the subject. Do you think I'm going to object for being "too short" when there is nothing else to write? The whole basis of my objection to your articles is that they deliberately omit information. Everyking 07:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they don't. Worldtraveller 09:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * An amazing claim. You have stated otherwise numerous times, that you omit what you consider "trivial", that encyclopedia articles are supposed to be concise summaries, etc. I have had God knows how many arguments with you over this philosophy of yours. You gave me grief over a set of articles about which you knew nothing on the grounds that they contained too much information. This is plain dishonesty; there's no other way I can interpret it. Everyking 09:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Could the two of you please take this debate elsewhere? It is clear that it is no longer relevant to this specific FAC and should thus continue on your talk pages. —Cuivi é nen 00:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your logic fails on two points: first, there is no dissuading for developing more important articles - how come Hurricane Katrina is right above this nomination? If the "Irene precedent" were true, no one would have developed that article. Also, you point out that tropical cyclone is not an FA - but it is almost ready for peer review, and hopefully we'll do the same for Hurricane Ivan and Hurricane Rita, which are next on the "importance" queue. Also, WP:WIAGA has standards that are more lax when compared to WP:WIAFA, so saying that editors should not write featured-quality articles so they can be listed in WP:GA is ridiculous, IMO. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 00:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I said giving FA status to very short articles would damage motivation, not eliminate it at a stroke. I have to say I'm really beginning to question why I bother with substantial articles like the rewrite of Venus I'm working on, if dry, production-line articles with less than 10kb of prose can be considered the very best that Wikipedia can produce.  GA standards are actually more or less the same as FA standards - the only substantial difference is the requiremement to be 'broad' instead of 'comprehensive'.  This is because they were designed to recognise excellent short articles.  Of course I'm not saying don't make article well-written, referenced, illustrated, neutral etc - all articles should be this, and GA is trying to encourage this on a much broader scale than FA does.  I'm just asking how mass-produced short articles on barely-notable storms can be considered as examples of the very best that Wikipedia can produce.  Worldtraveller 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WIAGA is slightly weaker than WIAFA but thats not why GA is lower in standard than FA. IMO the reason for that is FA standards are those of the harshest reviewer, whereas GA standards are those of the laxest reviewer. Surely the motivation for working on Venus is to get it to the wikipedia article on a very important topic to be the best it can be, why should the possibility of Maat Mons being featured affect that? This is getting off-topic for this FAC isnt it?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite true about the difference between FA and GA, although I do find that often I am the harshest reviewer but my objections are ignored and the article promoted anyway. As for motivation, mine takes a knock when I see tiny, formulaic articles on minor topics being put alongside fascinating and detailed articles on major topics.  When I've put many, many hours into writing each of my FAs, I feel extremely disappointed that something that clearly far less work has gone into can be put alongside them as an example of the 'very best'.  I do want all article to be of high quality - I just don't see the point of calling FAs the very best if absolutely any article can become one.  Scrap criterion 1 of WIAFA and I'd have no reasonable objection to this nomination.  Worldtraveller 16:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support as long as you can clarify whether it was a category 1 or 2 when it was closest to Johnston atoll. It sounds like it dropped from 5->1 but later in the article says it was a category 2. They are separate statements, but confusing enough to want to clarify! I think that the formulaic nature of these articles is good - standardization of common articles makes sense. - InvictaHOG 11:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It weakened from Category 2 to Category 1 while at its closest approach to the islands. I'll try to make that clearer. — C uivi é nen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 13:52 UTC '''
 * Support The article covers the storm i a fine way given the notability of the storm. However i don't think that its a good idea to let the cat5-storm-table going left-right. I think toy normally would read a collum to they end, before starting on the next. Jonatanj 11:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is something that's always bothered me as well. I've changed the template Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. — C uivi é nen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 13:59 UTC '''
 * Support. I'm not going to worry about a "formula" if the formula is a good one. The point is the best possible presentation of the most possible info. I would like this to be longer, but it didn't hit land, so I suppose little info is available&mdash;please expand if possible, though. Everyking 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the only notable damages were at a military base, we have virtually nothing to report other than a figure for damages. The government does not release detailed reports of damages at military bases for obvious reasons. — C uivi é nen on Wednesday, 7 June 2006 at 23:42 UTC '''
 * Oppose. My concerns are as per above. NSL E (T+C) at 02:02 UTC (2006-06-08)
 * Which is? Too short or inappropriate FAC? If it is too short, how is it too short? If it is inappropriate, why is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, as it seems very good to me. Appears to be comprehensive, and is well-sourced.  Tuf-Kat 18:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Support comprehensive - M ask [[Image:Flag_of_Alaska.svg|20 px]] 23:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)