Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2008 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 promoted by Giants2008 19:10, 15 January 2012.

Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season

 * Nominator(s): -- TropicalAnalystwx13  (talk)  18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this timeline now meets the requirements needed for a Featured list. -- TropicalAnalystwx13  (talk)  18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments.
 * Make sure every time the first unit is rounded, the second is as well. For example - " 60 mi (97 km)"
 * The Dolly section is improperly formatted where it makes landfall.
 * I'd like a source for Hanna being the deadliest storm of the season (see its image caption)
 * Could you get a better source for the starting date and ending date? The source only has a generic starting and ending date, and although I know it was the same back then, I'd rather you have a contemporaneous source. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all, thanks for the comments! --   TropicalAnalystwx13      (Talk)   21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * The dashes in number ranges should be n-dashes, according to the MoS.
 * I'd suggest you use Template:convert for the unit conversion and rounding. Waitak (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed all, thanks for the comments! --   TropicalAnalystwx13      (Talk)   21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see that either of these was done. Under May, for example, you have 45 mph (75 km/h) (which is actually incorrect!). Using Template:Convert that would be 45 mph yielding 45 mph. If you explicitly wanted to round to the nearest five, you could use 45 mph which produces 45 mph. Similarly for ranges (which also takes care of ensuring that you get n-dashes between numbers instead of dashes). Waitak (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 45 mph translates to 75 km/h. I didn't use the conversion template for all of them, granted I didn't use the template for only a select few. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 45 mph is 72.42 km/h. Rounded to the nearest five, it's 70 km/m, as you noted under August 5 at 1430 UTC. This is one reason to use the convert template, so that you don't have math errors. Waitak (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that we are converting this windspeed from knots.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The windspeeds used are the NOAA standards.  HurricaneFan 25  02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult here, but if you're converting from knots, then convert from knots and get the numbers right. I'm sure that NOAA doesn't assert that 45 mph is 75 km/h. If I understand correctly, the idea is that you've converted a number in knots (40?) to mph, rounding it to 45 mph, then converted the same figure in knots to km/h, getting 75 km/h. But 45 mph doesn't round to 75 km/h, so the numbers as represented in the article really are wrong and need to be fixed. Waitak (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually the numbers are correct because we are converting 40 knots to mph and 40 knots to km/h and yeah the NHC does so this. We have to do it this way as otherwise we are committing OR by increasing or decreasing the winds. Its one of those catch 22 situations and has been discussed numerous times on WP including here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. And I also see that you've used undefined undefined for the most part. undefined undefined does have some output units that convert to multiple units (like mgpus). Is there nothing like that for converting knots to mph and km/h, e.g. 40 kn (by analogy to 55 nmi, which works fine)? Waitak (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that does not exist. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. I'd still argue in favor of more accuracy, as above, but if this is what the NHC does, and you're quoting the numbers you're given accurately, then that has to be good enough. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose pending fixing of some things per MOS:NBSP, especially times (e.g. 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST) should be 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST).  HurricaneFan 25  22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I should have enough time to tweak all of those.  HurricaneFan 25  22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment there is an ongoing discussion at WT:WPTC on wheather that timelines should exist. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion ended a week ago, YE. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, that is not true at all. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  23:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Author refs are also incorrect.  HurricaneFan 25  01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How? -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - quick note on citations...the way the authors are represented now is quite confusing. In sources with 2+ authors, it's just rattling off names with no sense of if it's first or last. I already made a suggestion to TAWX to reformat these into |author=[First Name] [Last Name] so I'm just clarifying where that's coming from. I'll get around to reviewing this article within a few days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Some authors are still formatted as last, first; stay with one format.  HurricaneFan 25  21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the format, though I noticed a few more other issues I'll leave the nominator to address.  Auree    ★  22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources (haven't done spotchecks)
 * None of the refs have publish dates (|date= parameter); I would like to see these added. In addition, take note that dates within the body of the article are formatted as "Month day, year" (e.g. "December 5, 2011), while the ref retrieval dates are formatted as "Day month year" (e.g. "5 December 2011"). For optimal consistency, use the same format for the ref retrieval (and publish) dates as the one within the article.
 * Ref 2: "Clarksville Online" is |work=, not publisher.
 * Ref 6: Check title.
 * PDF files need |format=PDF parameters.
 * Multi-page PDF files also need page numbers/ranges (use |page= for a single page, |pages= for multiple pages)
 * NHC published reports should probably be formatted using the cite report template instead of cite web.
 * Furthermore, make sure everything in the article is sourced. The notes, as well as parts of the timeline, do not contain any sources to back up their claims. The fact that this list suffers basic problems such as verifiability makes me believe this was a rather premature nomination, so I'm inclined to oppose if I find more significant problems.  Auree    ★  23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I found that portions of significant and contentious content within the lede are not supported by any sources. Some of the content even appears to be incorrect. Some external links also link to completely irrelevant material. It needs a thorough check for similar problems.  Auree   ★  00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out the issues you have seen so far. I have Fixed all except the lede, which I shall get to shortly. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll get around to checking your changes soon. By the way, the usage of graphic templates is discouraged over at FLC (for example, Fixed, Done or Not done), as they slow down the page load time.  Auree    ★  00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some issues still remain: the notes remain unsourced; ref 6 still has a faulty title; and some sources still don't have publish dates. Additionally, use an – (endash) for page ranges on ref 5 and 15 (on ref 5, "1, 2, 4, 5" should be "1–5").  Auree    ★  01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, after struggling on how to reference a note, I have finished the lede and addressed all the issues that you brought up. :D -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Leaning support on criteria 2, 3 a) b), 4 and 6, as well as on referencing and lede prose. Thanks for your quick and good work. It's looking much better, but I would like to see a prose review of the timeline itself before wholly supporting. I might get around to doing this myself depending on how much edit time I have in the coming days.  Auree    ★  03:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support because it resembles the quality of other FL timelines in the Atlantic basin, such as the one in 2009.--12george1 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - What doesnt make this a content fork of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season? Jason Rees (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.