Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Ivan/archive1
Hurricane Ivan[edit]
As the 2005 Atlantic season approaches, and the 2005 Pacific season is already underway, I wanted to get a hurricane-related article on FAC, possibly to put on the front page as the season begins. Tropical cyclone, despite my best efforts, isn't yet ready; I hope to be able to nominate that within a month. However, of the four major storms for 2004, Ivan was probably the best article. It has all the best elements - lots of pictures (all of which are public domain or used with explicit permission), artwork made by Wikipedians explaining Ivan's strange path, the Infobox, detailed descriptions of the storm, the path it took, its effects, etc. I think, at the moment, this is the best storm article from 2004, and I submit it to FAC. (It also has the best picture, the ISS pic - that one is just beautiful) --Golbez 19:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Support - but - there needs to be a references section in this article. There are seven inline sources, but nothing to "consolidate" them at the end. --tomf688(talk) 19:32, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- What's the best way to go about doing that? Isn't there a new footnote template now or something? --Golbez 19:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure if a template exists, but also not sure how well it would work. For example, a lot of info came from the NHC website, but that isn't really referenced in the article. --tomf688(talk) 19:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, I've moved the references to the bottom, and am seeking out new references. --Golbez 08:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Not sure if a template exists, but also not sure how well it would work. For example, a lot of info came from the NHC website, but that isn't really referenced in the article. --tomf688(talk) 19:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- What's the best way to go about doing that? Isn't there a new footnote template now or something? --Golbez 19:34, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Lead section fails to provide an adequate overview of the article. Right now it recaps the storm's path and intensity but makes no mention of its effects. The "Effects" section needs better organization (possibly subheadings by geographic region). Also, the article really does not discuss efforts to deal with the aftermath and recover from the devastation; damage estimates are about all that's provided. --Michael Snow 22:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- Object, in addition to the valid points raised by Michael Snow, the list of preparations should be spun out into prose. There are several one sentence paragraphs that could be expanded or merged, for example Hurricane Ivan is also suspected of bringing spores of soybean rust from Venezuela into the United States, why is this significant? The anwser is not obvious to all readers. A brief description of storm categories should probably be added too, some people might now know that category 5 is the worst etc.--nixie 03:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- It really does need to be more comprehensive. Everyking 04:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
- Good points; I've gone through the article and have tried to deal with some of the problems mentioned above. The recovery and rebuilding section will take a bit more work, but is definitely a good idea. It seems like all of the hurricane articles are suffering in the recovery aspect as well. --tomf688(talk) 18:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- And this gave us the opportunity to realize the numbers were wrong. They added up right, but a few were off by one, etc. So far as I can tell, they've all been harmonized with the NHC's tropical cyclone report. --Golbez 18:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Good points; I've gone through the article and have tried to deal with some of the problems mentioned above. The recovery and rebuilding section will take a bit more work, but is definitely a good idea. It seems like all of the hurricane articles are suffering in the recovery aspect as well. --tomf688(talk) 18:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)