Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted 22:28, 29 April 2008.

List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season
Based off of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, I rewrote 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with the same format, splitting the storms section into its own list. While there might be very minor stuff that I can't see, I think after a few months of on-and-off work, this meets the FL criteria. If not, I will be happy to address any issues that come up. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - while I'm concerned over Wikiprojects using their own pseudo-templates in contravention of the general manual of style, this is not the place to get all uptight about it. My major concerns have been addressed and I'm happy to see this become a featured list.  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As usual, thank you for your helpful comments and suggestions. I'll ask some people about those templates, and I'll see what I can do. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to rain on the parade a little - but 11 dead links? Surely this needs rectifying?   weburiedoursecrets  inthegarden  19:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? Those links worked a couple days ago when I checked. That is odd. I guess I have to find new sources, or wait for that bad website to work. Anyway, thanks for the comment. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - I will fully support once the article's dead links are fixed. Article now meets standards for a support. Mitch 32contribs 19:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I replaced or fixed all of the dead links. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are a few sections that don't end with a reference. Be sure every paragraph ends with a ref. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think I added a reference to the end of every paragraph. Do you support, oppose? Juliancolton Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If I have to decide, I oppose. Overall writing is weak. On June 10, an area of disturbed weather associated with a broad low pressure area off the coast of Belize organized over the warm waters of the Caribbean Sea and became the first tropical depression of the season. Just for example, there are redundancies, unexplained terms (and un-Wikilinked), and too many words for a single thought. Either split it into two sentences, or organize it better. That said, given that the first sentence in the article is poorly worded, I have concerns for the writing of the rest of the article, and indeed the first sentence of each of the remaining sections aren't the best they can be. I notice the writing wasn't changed at all from the original season article, which heightens my oppose. When the season was active, the storm summaries were being written at the same time, leaving the sections with a jumbled feel. The sourcing is weak in the article, with several sections having inappropriate referencing (first paragraph of Alberto is all sourced to one single discussion, though all of the info in the first para is clearly not in that ref). Also, the ref you put at the end of the Alberto section is inappropriate, since the TCR does not mention any damage totals. The section for Helene seems inappropriately short, given that Debby's is just as long, despite the latter lasting much shorter time and not being nearly as strong. The article needs a lot of work, IMO. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did exactly the same thing you did to the List of storms in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. So, it was fine when you did it, but you're going to oppose when I did it? Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  12:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't see what you want to be further explained or Wikilinked. And what is jumbled about it? Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * JC, the difference is that I rewrote the sections before splitting it! This FLC is about this list, not about any other lists, so my objection remains. That first sentence I mentioned was 38 words long, with only one comma when I pointed it out. Since this list was once an article (and that it has a significant amount of prose), it needs to be well-written. A few other writing comments- a vigorous tropical wave formed off the coast of Africa - tropical waves generally don't form off the coast of Africa. At 3:15 p.m. EDT (1915 UTC) on August 24, - any reason so specific? In the Florence section, "science had prevailed" - is there any reason that quote was included? It appears it's the only quote in the article, and it doesn't seem NPOV, since it seems biased toward forecasters. As Florence moved away, a low-pressure system gradually became more organized northeast of the Lesser Antilles - this is very awkward how it opens the entire section. Outside of the writing, the sourcing is weak, as pointed out before. Double check the refs in the article, since many are to a single discussion that don't source the previous section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I gave it a copyedit and fixed all of the issues you pointed out, I made sure all of the references agreed with the information, I made sure everything is factually accurite. I'm sure you'll find more things to complain about, thought. :P Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a little better, but I'm still opposed. For example, the entire section on Isaac is sourced by a single CHC statement that does not talk about the early history of the storm. The second half of the second paragraph on Gordon is sourced by a single NHC advisory; said advisory was released before the storm dissipated, so how does the ref also cover information that happened several days later when it was extratropical? The Florence section goes way too much into the early portion of its storm history. The last sentence, which is unsourced, jumbles the peak intensity and extratropical transition without going into detail of impacts. Additionally, six lines in the Florence section are referenced to a single NHC discussion that doesn't even cover those six lines. I could go on, but given all of these problems, and how many problems that were unnoticed until FLC, means I am opposed to this being considered the very best work of Wikipedia. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.