Self-nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I worked on this, and I feel it is ready to become the next Tropical Cyclone related Featured Article. I feel it is comprehensive, well written, and, in all, ready. Comments?
Hurricanehink (
talk)
21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support though not the most notable hurricane, this should be one of our most notable articles since it is so good. My only issue is that the infobox bites a bit into the storm history section, but I don't think that's a serious problem.
Miss Madeline |
Talk to Madeline23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Object This could be the 10th featured hurricane-related article, how many do you plan on getting featured? Fine Support - a couple of minor things though, 236 million cubic feet needs a conversion and nbsp;, and there should be a comma following states following cities (like a comma after High Island, Texas). AndyZt01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
"nbsp;" is an HTML command for a non-breaking space. It prevents something attached to it from wrapping to the next line if it's at the very end. --
RattleMan01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Although I've never used it before, I think I know where it goes; between the conversions, like "236 million cubic units" (use edit to check the code). Looks messy, but I think that's it. Try resizing your browser window, and notice that the entire "236 million cubic units" moves to the next line instead of just one word (say, "units") moving to the next line. --
RattleMan01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'd like to see a longer lead before I support. I'm not sure how it could be expanded, but it seems too short. —CuiviénenT|
C,
Monday,
22 May2006 @ 01:57
UTC
For a storm that killed only one and caused only minimal damage along its path, anything more in the lead would become redundant. Also, Irene was featured with a shorter lead.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. On the lead a bit more detail on the storm history would work (thats the one thing Irene's has which Claudette doesn't).--
Nilfanion (
talk)
07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I've gone over the article with a fine comb and made sure there weren't any glaring errors. AndyZ: You may want to read the bold text near the top of
WP:WPTC...
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
More Comments Well written article, but I have more comments before supporting:
"There, residents remained calm during the evacuation, and peacefully taped up window" -- the reference provided suggested that they did NOT tape up windows. The sentence is somewhat POV sounding, anyway.
I removed "peacefully taped up windows". No real need.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
"to an area of flower growth" in the section on Aftermath. Is flower growth a technical term, or merely growth of flowers?
"Also, the storm was indirectly responsible for a death when a tree fell on a person in the cleanup of the storm" -- I actually could not find this info from the reference provided. It talks about one direct death due to tree falling, though.
Sort of changed it, though I'm not good with synonyms.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
It was in the Tropical cyclone report. I clarified the statement.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
In general, a light copyedit might be useful. I am not sure, but phrases like "By 2 months later, over 15,000 " (in aftermath) sound a bit suspect style wise.
Support; I did some copyediting, and fixed a few things. I'm confused at the inclusion of "This report would suggest the storm was a low-end Category 2 hurricane", when in fact a 95.5mph wind (even if it was sustained) is not a true Cat 2 (which begins at 96mph). Add to that that the report was unofficial and I fail to see the purpose of the sentence. I'll keep looking for wording problems, but this is looking really good. --
Spangineer[es](háblame)15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -- nice article. I would just request the editors to go through the references once, as some inconsistencies surfaced earlier.--
ppm19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Self-nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I worked on this, and I feel it is ready to become the next Tropical Cyclone related Featured Article. I feel it is comprehensive, well written, and, in all, ready. Comments?
Hurricanehink (
talk)
21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support though not the most notable hurricane, this should be one of our most notable articles since it is so good. My only issue is that the infobox bites a bit into the storm history section, but I don't think that's a serious problem.
Miss Madeline |
Talk to Madeline23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Object This could be the 10th featured hurricane-related article, how many do you plan on getting featured? Fine Support - a couple of minor things though, 236 million cubic feet needs a conversion and nbsp;, and there should be a comma following states following cities (like a comma after High Island, Texas). AndyZt01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
"nbsp;" is an HTML command for a non-breaking space. It prevents something attached to it from wrapping to the next line if it's at the very end. --
RattleMan01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Although I've never used it before, I think I know where it goes; between the conversions, like "236 million cubic units" (use edit to check the code). Looks messy, but I think that's it. Try resizing your browser window, and notice that the entire "236 million cubic units" moves to the next line instead of just one word (say, "units") moving to the next line. --
RattleMan01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'd like to see a longer lead before I support. I'm not sure how it could be expanded, but it seems too short. —CuiviénenT|
C,
Monday,
22 May2006 @ 01:57
UTC
For a storm that killed only one and caused only minimal damage along its path, anything more in the lead would become redundant. Also, Irene was featured with a shorter lead.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. On the lead a bit more detail on the storm history would work (thats the one thing Irene's has which Claudette doesn't).--
Nilfanion (
talk)
07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I've gone over the article with a fine comb and made sure there weren't any glaring errors. AndyZ: You may want to read the bold text near the top of
WP:WPTC...
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
More Comments Well written article, but I have more comments before supporting:
"There, residents remained calm during the evacuation, and peacefully taped up window" -- the reference provided suggested that they did NOT tape up windows. The sentence is somewhat POV sounding, anyway.
I removed "peacefully taped up windows". No real need.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
"to an area of flower growth" in the section on Aftermath. Is flower growth a technical term, or merely growth of flowers?
"Also, the storm was indirectly responsible for a death when a tree fell on a person in the cleanup of the storm" -- I actually could not find this info from the reference provided. It talks about one direct death due to tree falling, though.
Sort of changed it, though I'm not good with synonyms.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
It was in the Tropical cyclone report. I clarified the statement.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
In general, a light copyedit might be useful. I am not sure, but phrases like "By 2 months later, over 15,000 " (in aftermath) sound a bit suspect style wise.
Support; I did some copyediting, and fixed a few things. I'm confused at the inclusion of "This report would suggest the storm was a low-end Category 2 hurricane", when in fact a 95.5mph wind (even if it was sustained) is not a true Cat 2 (which begins at 96mph). Add to that that the report was unofficial and I fail to see the purpose of the sentence. I'll keep looking for wording problems, but this is looking really good. --
Spangineer[es](háblame)15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Support -- nice article. I would just request the editors to go through the references once, as some inconsistencies surfaced earlier.--
ppm19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)reply