Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Marco (2008)/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 promoted by Karanacs 17:33, 9 June 2009.

Tropical Storm Marco (2008)

 * Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the criteria for a featured article. It's been looked over many times attaining A-class status and recently has undergone a peer review. Hopefully this time most of the concerns with prose are minor or non-existent. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Good job on the article. I have A few minor style issues, though. I'd also like some clarification on a few points outlined below as well as more information generally speaking.
 * "a tropical wave reached the same area, and the system spawned circulation center over Belize." Is it some kind of hurricane jargon not to use an article with circulation center? It seems to me, that this should read "spawned a circulation center" or "spawned its circulation center" or seomthing like that.
 * Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "falling at rates up to 1 inches (25.4 mm) per hour," Should be up to 1 inch per hour.
 * Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * " The rains from Marco worsened flood situations in areas of Mexico already suffering from severe flooding." Why were they already suffering flooding?
 * Heavy rains prior to Marco I presume. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any idea when those rains took place? Were they result of another cyclone? Cool3 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Early/mid September to Mid/late October. It was the result of cold fronts and tropical waves. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "One river that overflowed its banks flooded left the towns of Minatitlan and Hidalgotitlan under 10 ft (3 m) of water." I think you need to remove "flooded" for this sentence to make sense. Also, what was the name of the river?
 * Source doesn't specify Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "when a lake and a river overflowed their banks." What lake? What river?
 * Source doesn't specify Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't find the name of the lake but I found the two rivers. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The Government of Mexico reported that 4,700 blankets, 2,900 mattresses, 5,554 bottles of water (each containing 500 milliliters), 260,000 boxes of milk, 250,000 packages of biscuits, and 12,400 boxes of school supplies." That's not a sentence. I believe you should have something like "had been distributed" at the end.
 * Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The placement of the final paragraph is odd. It would seem to make more sense somewhere else, though I'm not quite sure where.
 * I'm not sure how it's odd, that's where the tropical cyclone project always puts records and retirement notes about tropical cyclones. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean specifically "At 0052 UTC on October 7, tropical storm force winds extended 11.5 miles (18.5 km) from the center of Marco. This made Marco the smallest tropical cyclone ever recorded, surpassing the previous record set by Cyclone Tracy on December 24, 1974 when gale force winds extended 30 miles (48 km)" This seems like it would better belong in the Meteorological history section as it is meteorological. If this sort of placement is indeed customary, then I will bow to custom. Cool3 (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the record set by Marco, that's why it's in the Preparations, impact and records section which is how the project generally does it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's only 861 words of readable prose. There's really nothing else to say?  Personally, I get to the end, and think: that's it?
 * Source number 21 comes from the Xinhua News Agency, which is sometimes criticized for distortion and unreliability. If there's no other source for the number of people affected, then I don't have a problem with referencing Xinhua, but if you have another source, I think that would be preferable.
 * Xinhua has never been a problem for TC's, they always report properly form what I've seen in their reports. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea how many people were injured?
 * No one was injured. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even slightly? Not so much as a broken bone?  Cool3 (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This does indeed seem to be the case and I think it's significant enough to work into the text of the article. If you don't already have a source explicitly stating there were no injuries, one can be found here. Cool3 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really notable but I added it in anyways, I cited the TCR as it's much more reliable than that blog. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any idea on the dollar value of the damages?
 * No source has this information. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the paragraph on Marco being the smallest hurricane, you state "tropical storm force winds extended 11.5 miles" for Marco but "gale force winds extended 30 miles" Is this comparing the same thing? Are gale force and tropical storm force the same velocity?  If so, I'd suggest referring to both with the same name to avoid possible confusion.  If the two are different, then an explanation of what this comparison means would be quite helpful.
 * Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall, I'm sorry to say that I'm not convinced this is quite FA worthy. I've simply never seen one quite this short, and I think there's probably more to say. Cool3 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quite sure that there is not any more information available for this storm. It's a very short-lived storm, lasting less than two days, but is notable due to its size record. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I did another search through Spanish sources and found very little additional information, mainly between pages 12 and 19 of my search. After that, there was nothing so I believe I've used all available sources for the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Support Nice work. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home, User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox

Support - I doubt you could extend this out much as the storm lasted for two days.Jason Rees (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I'm surprised Cyclonebiskit managed to find as much info as he did. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the image review Jappalang. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - I believe that this article meets FA criteria. Nice work Cyclonebiskit. Darren23 (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - for a short, but well-written and researched contribution. Graham Colm Talk 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.