Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1941 Florida hurricane/archive2

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 26 April 2009 [1].

---

1941 Florida hurricane

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There's not really much to say. I've searched around for more info, and after coming up dry, I'm confident that the article is comprehensive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tech. Review

• Disambiguation links check out with the dab finder tool, as does the ref formatting with the WP:REFTOOLS script.
• Fix the 1 dead external link.--Truco 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Link checker tool times out for me; could you please be a bit more specific? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Its http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2007_atl_reanal.txt.--Truco 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the notes (NOAA came to my notice..)

• Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2007_atl_reanal.txt deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• I updated the broken link to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2008_atl_reanal.txt for 2009 -- it might be good to add an additional note/link to page that won't die in 2010. And maybe one that explains the reference's data file format. Would the easy-to-read HURDAT from http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html be a more readable source? Drf5n (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Question. Why does the article deserve to be featured and considered one of Wikipedia's best articles? The research appears scant for such a historical storm, namely that it extensively relies on material from more than 60 years ago. If you could, I'd prefer if your response doesn't mention the FA criteria, and simply why it should be considered one of the best articles on the site. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• "I'd prefer if your response doesn't mention the FA criteria"? Ideally, a discussion on whether to promote an article to FA should involve the FA criterion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• So you can't give you reasons why you think it should be one of Wikipedia's best articles, without copying and pasting the FAC criteria? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• If you have objections, let me know which of the criterion this articles fails. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• So you can't say why you think it should be featured? That's fine. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think it should be featured because I believe it meets WP:WIAFA. There's nothing else to it, I'm afraid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

• Some links to consider - 1, 2 (an interesting take), 3 (p. 152), 4 (if you can track this down, it will be useful in all of your pages), 5 (p. 142 "For example, a storm that entered the west coast of Florida in October 1941 was never of hurricane intensity; nevertheless"), 6 (says the same as number 5 on p. 512), 7 (p. 9 "Such an explanation cannot be used for the October, 1941 hurricane while it was

in the subtropical regions of the Bahama Islands and Florida because..."), 8, 9 (p. 76). There are possibly one or two sentences that can be drawn from each. This should quell any research concerns when added. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Suggest suspension of FAC until the conflict at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tropical Storm Erick (2007)/archive1. Ceranllama chat post 21:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• The two pages have nothing to do with each other, so there is no grounds for such a suspension. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, Ottava is correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for the moment, mainly prose, 1a. Specifically:-
  • "The warnings were attributed to extensive preparations..." Surely, the other way round?
  • "Trees and powerlines knocked down, resulting in extensive power outages." Not a sentence
  • "No casualties occurred in the city, although a schooner, the Goodwill II, sank during the storm." Sank in the city? These distinct statements should be separated
  • "Some hospitals were left without power, forcing six babies to be delivered by candle light." Wrong order of words: "forcing delivery of six babies.." etc. And "candlelight" is one words
  • Also, not a prose problem as such, but the following sentence doesn't seem related to the subject: "When the United States entered World War II, new vehicles become unavailable, forcing residents to resort to horse-drawn carriages for transportation." This might be OK as a footnote but seems out of place in the text.
  • There are also numerous nbsp violations.

• All of these points should be pretty easily fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Good points; all fixed, though you might want to make sure I've addressed the non-breaking spaces correctly. Thanks for the review. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Support: I've checked the nbsps and they seem OK. Note 12 needs a citation if you're keeping it in. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• In the Preparations section, refs 3 and 1 need to be ordered
• Same as abovewith refs 13 and 1 in the last paragraph of United States Mm40 (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.