Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Christine (1973)/archive1


 * 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 Karanacs 17:47, 20 October 2009.

Tropical Storm Christine (1973)

 * Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria. I have used all available sources, including those from Google Books and Scholar and the article has undergone a thorough review from. All comments welcome as always. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Overall, the article is relatively well sourced but the first paragraph has some claims that need to be verified. In addition I have found several spelling errors that need correction and the writing itself needs to be smoothed out a little bit. The article basically meets WP:GACR but needs work before reaching featured article quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelen S. (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 October 2009
 * Can you clarify the things that need to be verified please? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that sourcing in the lead section is optional, if that's what you're referring to. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead wasnt what he was reffering too, the first few sentences were not sourced, i sorted it out earlier though as well as giving it a small copyedit.Jason Rees (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It seems there is a trend developing in which short storms-related articles sourced from preliminary NOAA reports and local newspaper stories are being nominated as FACs. Hurricane Grace (1991) was a recent example.  Like the latter, this article is poorly sourced.  The map is very poor; no latitude/longitude information, no date/day/time information, not even a scale that tells us how many miles or kilometers we are looking at.  Tracking Christine was one of the highlights of the US Skylab 3 mission of 1973 (mistakenly referred to as Skylab 2 in the text, although other references apparently make the same mistake).  Nothing about how those measurements were used to garner more sophisticated information about the storm is mentioned here.  Google Books, alone, has some 30 references on Christine, most of which have not been acknowledged in the article, and Google Scholar has another 10.  Sorry, this needs work.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, these maps have never had an issue at FAC before, they have been the same for years and since I am not the creator of the program, I am unable to do anything about altering the tracks other than changing what storm (or storms) is shown. As for the referencing, that basically sums up how all cyclone articles are written. We use NOAA and newpaper reports to make the articles, and books if available for older storms. As for the books, just because there are 40 some-odd available, most do not have useful information. I'll search into the Skylab numbering issue and see what I can pull up for that. Lastly, can you expand upon your claim of the article being poorly soruced? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm in a hurry right now, but why can't you use (i.e. trace) the map in Hebert and Frank? It is has much more information.  We don't need the color.  I'm happy to do that for you, but it may be a few days before I can find the time.  (By the way, the name of the author is Hebert, not Herbert.)   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Objecting to a map system that has been utilized for thousands of articles is better done as part of a more broad meta-discussion, not a particular FAC. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then, withdraw the article, conduct your meta-discussion and come back when you have a useful map.  There is nothing in the FA criteria that says that flawed convention trumps comprehensive information.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Withdraw an FAC over a single image? That seems overkill to say the least I'm afraid. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Acctully the maps are usefull as they are IMO and yes it is overkill to say the least to withdraw the FAC. Also i do not think adding lattidue and longitudes would be any good as i think it would make the maps look messy and horriable esspecially when you have several islands such as Fiji, Guam, French Polynesia etc to fit in. If you dont like the maps maybe you could suggest an alternative map that could work in ALL basins of the world. Also your scholary and journal searches are flawed as there is more than 1 tropical storm Christine. Jason Rees (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Most are about the 73 storm, not the 98. The map in Hebert and Frank, p. 281 is not messy.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, BTW, Jason Rees, can you tell me which of the 50 references (40 in Google Books and 10 in Google Scholar) are not to the 1973 Christine? I just went through all of them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Acctully it would look very messy in the article and wouldnt be able to clearly see when it reached TD TS etc, or the longitude or lattidue postions which is the only thing wrong with the maps as far as i can gather - Also why should we change the map software when none but you has a problem with it. On another note i dont have time to go through all 50 odd references that you have found and anaylise them but i am sure not all of them relate to tropical storm Christine of 1973 as there was one in 1964 as well as 1998. Also if you really were going through all of these books im sure you would of realised that there isnt much in them that isnt in the article already. Jason Rees (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * (To Jason Rees) That was a sort of rhetorical question.  All 50 refer to the 1973 storm.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

←As I said earlier, how many of the of those sources you've mentioned have useful information that isn't already in the article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are suggesting that there aren't any or asking me (in a spirit of cooperation) to provide a list of references and material to be included in the article?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'ved checked through the ten articles from Google Scholar and none of them have any additional information for the article. I'm in the middle of checking the other 30 you have mentioned. I'll get back to you once I have read through them Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've checked through the remaining articles, none of them have any information that is not already in this article. Many of them have duplicated information concerning Skylab 3 watching the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe pages 242–250 in the reference "Oceans and Atmosphere" do have useful information that can be included in the article. You need to expand your section on how the Skylab data was used to get more information about the storm.  In my opinion, you are attempting articles that are at the level of sub-articles in a featured list, not featured articles in their own right.  If you are seriously making the case that the article cannot be expanded, then withdraw the article and submit a joint article on "Hurricane Ava and Tropical Storm Christine (1973)."  Since both storms were tracked by Skylab, you will have more references, and more meat in the article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  20:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why withdraw it though? With all due respect, it'd be frankly ridiculous to merge two articles on two entirely different storms that were connected only by similar observations. The additions you're suggesting are trivial at best in my opinion and offer no further comprehensiveness to this page. I'm not sure why you maintain your objections when you haven't tried to refute the nominator's argument that the article requires no further information. Where is the article lacking in its coverage or depth? Without addressing specific issues, editors have no way of determining what, exactly, needs to be fixed, so suggesting that this article be withdrawn without much of a rationale for making such a suggestion seems little more than sweeping this issue under the rug. That you disagree with nominating this article for featured status is a valid concern, but shouldn't be the focus of opposition. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there truly isn't any more information available about the storm, then the storm is not notable enough to be a featured article. If you say that notability is not among the featured article criteria, I say that it implicitly is.  Otherwise, we can all produce an article (and I have a few) which are immaculately sourced, comprehensive, and well written, but are barely two paragraphs long.  Should we be submitting them to FAC review?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "...then the storm is not notable enough to be a featured article" - Please review WP:WIAFA; nowhere do the criteria require, let alone advise, that featured articles be "notable". If an article meets the usual inclusion standards, it's eligible to become featured. See Tropical Storm Erick (2007), a featured article on a storm that lasted two days and didn't have any impact (also see its FAR and AFD, listed on the talk page). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you don't understand the difference between "implicit" and "explicit." Sorry, my oppose stands.  You can argue that it is inactionable, if you wish; however, at the very best the author needs to summarize the contents of pages 242–250 in the reference cited above.  There is no way that an English literature article could get away on FAC with such poor sourcing. This is my last comment here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the difference, but we can't make stuff up and pretend that it's implicitly listed somewhere in WIAFA. If there are sourcing issues, then yes, that needs to be resolved; if there is a lack of comprehensiveness, yes, that too needs to be addressed. But if you oppose, you still need to explain how the article fails to adhere to the criteria so other editors can work to amend it. Your comments don't seem to do that. Furthermore, it isn't appropriate to refuse further conversation if your oppose is to remain; FAC is a discussion, not a vote. That said, I'm not sure why you're comparing this to an "English literature article"; this is a science article, and therefore it's not going to have the academic sources that a literature article would. Apples and oranges I'm afraid. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This article doesnt have poor sourcing issues, also the contents of pages 242–250 in the reference cited above is pure triva and not relevant to this article and thus wont get put in.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Source comments Dabs and links fine.
 * Current refs 4, 5, 7, 8, 12 are missing the publishing date.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Current ref 8's publication needs to be St. Petersburg Times (i.e. remove the "h")
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Current refs 9, 18, 19 are missing both the author name and the publishing date.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Current refs 10, 11 need a book citation template which should include the page number and (ideally) the ISBN on top what is already cited.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Current refs 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 have exactly the same Google search link even though the citations are for different pages.
 * Specified the links Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

RB88 (T) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed some outstanding issues myself. RB88 (T) 20:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Image review: All three images check out, although if I was being picky I'd ask File:Christine 1973 track.png to be done as a SVG image. Not opposing over it. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support as it meets all the criteria. I feel the above objections are not actionable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't have time to review this article fully, but "The only effects from the remnant system in Florida was possible squalls on September 7 and 8." is awkward and grammatically incorrect. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too short, and despite small size has writing problems ("originated from", "During its passage through the Leeward Islands, Christine produced torrential rainfall, peaking at 11.74 in (298 mm) in eastern Puerto Rico."???) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:WIAFA before objecting to nominations, thanks. As I've explained to you before, "too short" is not a valid concern. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've explained to me before, and I was just too dumb to get it, surely you'll only be wasting your time "explaining" to me again. No? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I wonder whether the active editors at the appropriate WikiProject(s) can get together and review the list of FAs at this stage. As a body, they are a considerable achievement, but most of the low-hanging fruit appear to have been harvested, at least for individual storms. Is it not possible to explore opportunities for future FACs that are not based on single storms? What themes might provide new avenues for beefier (= longer) FACs?

Just thinking from the position of an ignoramus (I've been called that today), might there now be expeditions into thematic territory based on the where and the when, so we have available excellent accounts from a more distant point of departure? Might there be sufficient secondary sources now that talk in terms of how storms of various types have been changing over the past few decades (presumably in connection with global warming)? I'm unsure, but it's worth fishing. Tony  (talk)  13:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.