Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)


 * 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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:15, 31 July 2008.

Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)

 * Nominator(s):  Plasticup  T / C 

I have worked on this article for a hundred edits or so, and I think it is as complete as it will ever be. The prose is polished, the MOS exhaustively consulted, and as far as I know it meets the FAC criteria.  Plasticup  T / C  17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Some of the refs need to be consolidated as per WP:CITE. See "Using the same citation again", which explains how to use the command. María ( habla con migo ) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Comment withdrawn. The refs are only deceivingly similar. María ( habla con migo ) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, phew. You had me scraching my head there.  Plasticup  T / C  17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So sorry! Damn my eyes... María ( habla  con migo ) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - This is yet another comprehensive meteorogical article. Great job, amd keep it up. -- Meldshal   (§peak to me)  19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support I would never think that anything would go as deep as "Meteorological history of", and yet... Great article, meets all the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing However: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States." I have no idea what this means. Please reduce the jargon in this sentance, or add links. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have added two wikilinks that ought to answer your questions.  Plasticup  T / C  11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 31 Jose Fernandez Partagas "Gordon a Complex Weather System" is lacking a last access date.
 * http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/092/mwr-092-03-0128.pdf is lacking a publisher, which would be NOAA, I believe.
 * Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 31 had an accesscate instead of an accessdate. That is fixed. The pdf that you linked took me a while to find because it is transcluded from Template:Wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_Haiti. I am fixing that now. I also noticed that none of the pdf references have format=pdf in the citations, so I'll be fixing that too.  Plasticup  T / C  13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The template citations are fixed and the pdfs are marked.  Plasticup  T / C  13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Oppose 1a -
 * Opening sentence is unnecessarily awkward - the whole title of the article need not be written out and bolded. Just "Hurricane Gordon, which lasted thirteen days, was erratic, etc. etc." would be fine.
 * I really don't think that the opening is awkward, and neither did the FAC reviewers of Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, nor Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan, all of which achieved FA status with similar openings.  Plasticup  T / C  01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do. Just because other articles have passed with subpar opening sentences doesn't mean every article should. If you like, you can ask a few other prose reviewers on FAC for their opinion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want, sure. I really like the lead as it is now and am going to stand by it.  Plasticup  T / C  03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm going to stand by my oppose unless you agree to change the opening sentence - the opening sentence needs to be grammatically immaculate because it's all most people will read of the article; this one is far from that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A comma after two words is pretty much the definition of awkward. The opening sentence, as it is now, it straightforward and dead simple. The subject is clear and the only commas separate items of a list. Your alternative introduces an unnecessary subordinate clause after just two words.  Plasticup  T / C  21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A subordinate clause after two words is better than a grammatically incorrect sentence. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate? How is it grammatically incorrect?  Plasticup  T / C  16:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used grammatically incorrect, but it's confusing and makes little sense. You have subjects mixed up - Hurricane Gordon was erratic, inconsistent, etc., not its history. The current version, however, implies the latter as opposed to the former. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting point. But I don't want to start the article by talking about Hurricane Gordon in general - I want it to be clear that this article is about the hurricane's meteorology. Any suggestions there?  Plasticup  T / C  03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How about the version I just posted? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 05:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Works for me.  Plasticup  T / C  10:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * (<- outdent) Perfect. Striking my oppose. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is "Tropical" in "Tropical depression" capitalised? This kind of thing happens throughout the article.
 * I count one instance of this. It was in the lead and I have fixed it. The phrase "Tropical Storm Gordon" earns a capitalization because it is a proper noun, much like New York City is not New York city.  Plasticup  T / C  01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of places where you write "Tropical Storm" without the "Gordon". Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be difficult, but I just did a case-sensitive search of the article, and every instance of "Tropical Storm" is followed by "Gordon". Maybe I fixed them while making another edit, but in any event I hope that this issue is resolved.  Plasticup  T / C  03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rechecking, it appears that that's the case. Never mind. I'll respond to the other point soon after another runthrough of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to Category 1 Hurricane Gordon." - why not just "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to [the status of] a Category 1 Hurricane?" - words in brackets are optional.
 * I'll have a read through for some of these. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker.  Plasticup  T / C  01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The storm's characteristically wandering track" - why not just "The storm's characteristic wandering"?
 * That would work too. I'm sure there are a dozen ways to write it - is yours better than the existing one?  Plasticup  T / C  01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I always try to make articles a concise as possible - the former method of expressing it seems unnecessarily redundant and lengthy to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this one, so I made the change.  Plasticup  T / C  03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve." - unnecessarily awkward, similar to the bullet two above this one.
 * I have changed it to "was designated Tropical Depression Twelve"  Plasticup  T / C  01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article contains many of the faults demonstrated in the last and third to last points. The unneeded capitalisation is also an issue (albeit a minor one), and the rest of the prose has some other mistakes as well. Give the prose a cleanup and I'll be happy to support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are still many prose issues, some of which are not being addressed. I suggest getting some fresh eyes in to look at the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Mattisse has given it a thorough copyedit. Personally I am not a fan of many of the changes, but let me know what you think.  Plasticup  T / C  15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A tad better, but I can not lift my oppose with the unresolved issues, namely the opening sentence to the November 13 segment. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but help me out for a minute. Is your argument that the sentence is unclear? Does it not transfer its intended meaning? Because I think that the sentence is perfectly clear. So your argument must be that the meaning of the sentence is not one worthy of being transmitted. Here again I am perplexed - it is a brief introduction to two very important paragraphs.  Plasticup  T / C  20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not concerned that the sentence doesn't transfer its intended meaning&mdash;it is perfectly clear. I just believe that it is unnecessary, because the reader can determine for themselves that November 13 was indeed a busy day because of the numerous notable events in the storm's history. It just adds more text for a reader to progress through, without adding any meaningful context to the prose. Even though I am in favor of having the sentence removed altogether, if it were to stay, a substantial improvement would be to replace the word "busy" with "active". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the sentence (it takes a whole second to read—it's not going to bore anyone into not reading the article), as it is simply stylistic flair. However, I changed it anyways. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I stopped copy editing because you were displeased. There are still changes I would make if it were up to me. Why don't you ask User talk:Juliancolton to suggest a replacement sentence for the one he dislikes? Besides following User:Tony1's rules and other rules of copy editing, much is a matter of taste. If User talk:Juliancolton says that he finds the sentence troublesome, then it seems to me you must take him at his word. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton, I agree with your comments concerning the sentence. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 20:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It wasn't that sentence in particular so much as it was the stripping of every bit of creativity in the name of "encyclopedic"-ism. But I'll concede this point if it makes everyone feel better. Beware, my future FACs will all have interesting and professional language as well. ;-) Champions of the bland be on your guard!  Plasticup  T / C  00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See "Brilliant prose" on WikiSpeak. :-) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I defended your use of language in one of your past "Hurricane" articles because there it served to enhance the article. That is not the case here. The use of "busy" in the first sentence was not "engaging prose" but more like Time magazine writing, sorry to say. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support The majority of my issues have been addressed, and the few that remain are not significant enough for me to withhold a support. All in all, well done, but some more copyediting would be nice. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  22:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note, no image review? Can you locate someone to check them?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Images are good, as they are all either self-made or in the public domain as a work of the Federal Government. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.