Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean/archive1

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean
Self nomination This article is comprehensive, well sourced and, in my biased opinion, reasonably well written. It recently achieved GA without any significant criticism, and I believe it is a worthy of WP:FA. Factually it is very straightforward, so I expect that comments shall be limited to style issues and I welcome your thoughts.  Plasticup  T / C  16:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is too soon after the storm. There are bound to be changes when the Tropical Cyclone Report comes out. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak object, due to §1.e. While everything else is there, wait until the information stabilizes after the Tropical Cyclone Report comes out. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoxd (talk • contribs) 18:31, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but the TCR is likely months away. The article isn't unstable as defined by WP:WIAFA; it is not the subject of an edit war nor is it changing daily. In a few months the minimum central pressure will be changed and the track image will be updated. Yes, there will be changes, but nothing so dramatic that it will compromise the quality of the article. For example, the Economy of India will change over the next year (especially when the government budget is released) but for the moment it is complete and reasonably unchanging. Cryptography is in a similar state of mild flux but it too is reasonably stable. To reiterate: "stability" does not mean that the article will never change. It does mean that the article is not expected to change significantly in the short-term. I honestly feel that this article satisfies that criteria.  Plasticup  T / C  20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to recentism. This storm was not even a month ago. Wait for the TCR to come out, at least. --Core desat 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I fail to understand how the article suffers from recentism but more importantly, WP:Recentism isn't even a guideline, let alone a featured article criteria. If you wish to oppose the FAC on the grounds of WP:WIAFA I would love to hear what you have to say, but right now I cannot make sense of your objection. Also, see my reply to Titoxd for your implicit concern about stability.  Plasticup  T / C  21:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is only going to go to an oppose I'm afraid. The Tropical Cyclone Report will fundamentally alter a parts of the history; and is the canonical source for a one off event. The articles highlighted above will gradually change with time but do not relate to a point in time. This one does and the basic analysis by the relevant scientific organisations has not been done yet. This alone means stability is not there. IMO this FAC is premature and fails 1(e).
 * 1) The article is too technical in my view, and goes into too much detail on the human efforts to monitor the storm as opposed to what the storm actually did. There is far too much jargon.
 * 2) If it wasn't for the fact the sources are public domain this article would be a copyright violation. Rewrite what the NHC said, don't just copy them verbatim. The major rewrite this requires means the stability isn't there.
 * 3) The units are inconsistently used, sometimes imperial and SI, sometimes imperial only, sometimes knots only.
 * 4) There are too many satellite images. The comparable article on Hurricane Katrina has two diverse graphics significantly adding value.
 * 5) The article is single sourced to the NHC, an American organisation. However, the impact was in other countries and the operational information does not go into detail on this. Given this I would not be confident that all the pertinent information is there (rainfall levels, surge).
 * 6) Its not factually accurate: the NHC did not say "a storm surge of 12 to 18 feet" occurred but that it was predicted. The predicted value is not of interest, what actually happened is.
 * Personally, I'd suggest withdrawal of this FAC and wait until we have details on what actually happened. The article's talk page or WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessments would be more appropriate locations to discuss its development.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, as per your recommendation. I didn't realize that there was so much to be done.  Plasticup  T / C  00:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)