Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2005 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Self-nomination on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. This article meets all of the featured article criteria, is exceptionally well-written, and is the standard to set for future hurricane season articles. While there has been a bit of controversy whether the List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms should be merged in, it is highly unlikely that this article would be significantly modified in the future, and at this point, with all the Tropical Cyclone Reports in, it is finally stable. In my perhaps biased opinion, this is the best article on Wikipedia, period. Support. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. The Tropical Cyclones Wikiproject and others in general have put a lot of effort into this article, and the result is excellent. --tomf688 (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the grounds that it meets all of the criteria. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. -- WmE 20:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's time for a seasonal FAC. Everyone did a ton of work on this monster, but it's lookign great now. Hurricanehink 20:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this is a great article. Concerns: Is there a real need to bold all of the storm names? Seems unnecessary to me, but I rarely find bold text in the article text outside the lead to be beneficial. Also, don't forget about & nbsp; in the units. I agree with the decision to keep the list out of this article; it'd get too long. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 22:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The bolding was done in order to make it easier to find an individual storm within the summary of all of the storms. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:24 UTC
  • Support per all, and wishing he had managed to nominate it first. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:24 UTC
  • Object. Support. At present, the first three sentences of the article read:
The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season unexpectedly became the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, shattering previous records on repeated occasions. The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with record damages over $100 billion USD and at least 2,048 deaths. The season's five landfalling major hurricanes — Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma — were responsible for most of the destruction.
Counting problems with that:
  • "in recorded history". We don't know that, since hurricanes that never reached land might have been ignored prior to satellite surveillance.
  • if it's the most active, it would shatter previous records. Kind of obvious?
  • "of" missing between "record damages" and "over". If a reader mentally inserted a colon here, an incorrect statement would be made.
  • "unexpectedly"? predictions that global warming would cause more severe hurricane seasons were widespread before 2005
    • No, they weren't, at least not among meteorologists (non-expert opinions don't matter). Meteorologists generally (and still) believe that global warming causes more intense hurricanes without increasing the number. In any case, the unexpectedness of the activity is elaborated upon in the predictions section. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:54 UTC
  • 2,048 deaths is not the record for a hurricane season, even though many readers might get that impression.
  • "landfalling" is not linked, even though landfall has a technical definition that the reader might not know, referring to the cyclone's center (tropical cyclones have caused significant damage without ever making landfall)
  • ditto for "major hurricanes"
That's three definite problems, and four more that I believe make this a (very) good article not quite ready to be featured. The first paragraph it's important, I believe, and should probably be part of the featured article criteria. In this case, it seems to suggest the hurricane season was more extraordinary in its effects than it actually was: it most likely wasn't the most active year for atlantic hurricanes in historic times, just in the last 40 years or so. it wasn't the one that killed most people. I'm not aware of anyone having done the math that it was the most damaging relative to GDP, or GDP in endangered areas. (It was, for the US, the most traumatic (at least after WWII). It was the first time a major western city was destroyed in a natural disaster in many years.)
Sorry for the long post. I'll put them on my user page and link to them if preferred?
Changed to support. I've read the rest, and it's really good.
RandomP 22:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replying per point:
  • The reason it is in recorded history and not just history is exactly the point you bring up.
  • Not necessarily: there's several records of intensity, number of storms, major hurricanes, etc. that were all being claimed by different, very-active seasons. It is extremely rare for one season to claim all of them at the same time.
  • Typo. Fixed.
  • Yes, unexpectedly. Claiming that global warming is the reason for the activity of the storms is original research, and previous estimates by experts, who had supposedly taken global warming in their predictions already, fell far short of the actual activity level of the season.
  • That is clarified in the next paragraph, as well as the records section.
  • The two links are fixed now.
  • Hypothesizing that other seasons could have been more active is not appropriate, as it would be basically degrading the article to weasel words. Basically, using all the records that are available, it is the most active season ever recorded. I'm not sure either that comparing the season to World War II is appropriate either, as they're two completely unrelated events, and it is impossible to make every single comparison possible and keeping the article at a finite length. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More importantly, damage in terms of GDP is not how the damages are discussed, either by the article or by the National Hurricane Center (or any other expert organisation). It was inarguably the most damaging season in both the US and Atlantic-wide even when inflation is taken into account. In fact, as damages do not include economic impact (which is calculated separately), referring to damages per GDP would not be proper, as GDP refers to economic power and not the market value of a nation itself. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 23:09 UTC
  • Just FWIW, I strongly disagree with you on the point that non-expert opinions don't matter. Public opinion (and public reaction) does. Also, the "unexpectedly" modifies not the "actual activity levels", but the "most active season on record". Virtually no one expected that the 2005 season would be as strong as it was, but given the differences in counting, the 1933 record being broken in the next couple of years seemed likely anyway.
  • Did I actually compare anything to World War II? I just used it to describe a time period, which coincidentally is when radar became available.
  • "Basically, using all the records that are available, it is the most active season ever recorded". I still think that a casual reader (such as the ones that read articles because they are featured; i.e. the readers we are actually concerned with here) will be unaware just how short reliable records of hurricanes are. Again, you attack a proposal I did not actually make (to hypothesize that other seasons were more active). I still suggest rewording to avoid actual readers think that records show the 2005 season to be the most active "since records began" (i.e. generally the late 19th or early 20th century).
  • for the record: I did not suggest to mention damages relative to GDP in my list of reasons for opposing. I agree that damages divided by GDP of the endangered areas (yielding a length of time) might not be the best possible way of comparing damages, but you've got to admit that that time ("how long would it take to repair the damage if no one did anything else?") is certainly not something that "would not be proper" to refer to.
  • I'm also vaguely concerned that a statement where "damage" does not include human lives lost might be read as one that does.
Still, I've withdrawn my objection. If every opinion people held after reading our articles were perfect, there'd be no ignorance left to fight in the future :) RandomP 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I think variations in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation seem more significant than global warming. I agree "global warming causes more hurricanes" was/is a commonly held belief, but I am not aware of the more specific "2005 will be extremely active because of global warming" being said before the season started. Therefore the global warming things should be on more general articles but not the individual seasons.
  • Check List of notable Atlantic hurricanes, from that it can be seen 2005 was the most damaging with inflation taken into account (due to Katrina), but possibly not if "wealth normalization" is considered.
  • Perhaps the "record" should just be dropped from the damage figure? We know the season is a record breaker from the first sentence and the fact $100 bilion is a record is mentioned elsewhere (in the box). I am concerned that the 2,048+ figure taken in conjunction with the "up to 2,000" deaths from Stan could lead the reader to think the other storms only contributed a few deaths.--Nilfanion 10:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. However that 2048 death figure should be rephrased, particularly when taken in conjunction with the 2000+ deaths from Stan, it seems to imply most of the deaths were from Stan.--Nilfanion 23:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Considering the size of this hurricane season alot of work was done on this article. Congratulations to the editors of the Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones. Tarret 01:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Some topics are simply so important that Featured Articles simply must be written about them. Wikipedia should rejoice that another such topic may be scratched off of that list. RyanGerbil10 02:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 08:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment + Question: Some of the in-line citations are of the format sentence. [1], when in fact they should be formatted like such — sentence.[1] per WP:FOOTNOTE. Also, there's information on the economic and political impact of the hurricanes, but is there any particular reason why the social impact of the hurricanes wasn't covered particularly wrt Katrina, which left millions of people displaced and unemployed? Thanks AreJay 13:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the inconsistent citation format.--Nilfanion 13:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I would say about the social aspect is that, since it applies only to a single storm, it should be covered in Hurricane Katrina rather than in the main season article. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 14:47 UTC
I'd say that most if not all major hurricanes had some sort of social impact. I know that Rita and Wilma ravaged south Florida. Dennis devastated Grenada; I would say that the social impact wrt displacement, loss of property, death etc was greater with Dennis and Katrina because of the intensity of the particular hurricane and because of the lack proper, coordinated disaster response infrastructure; however I do feel that a discussion of the social impact of the hurricanes is pertinent. Some of the discussion around the individual hurricanes deals with the social impact, but that can be expanded upon and structured in Wikipedia:Summary style. AreJay 15:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have got a little confused with the storms. Wilma affected Florida, Rita scarcely touched it, but affected LA/TX. Dennis had hardly any effects in Grenada but hit the US and Cuba hard (were you thinking of 2004's Ivan?). Nonetheless, I think you have a valid point, we have a paragraph on the political consequences (of Katrina), why not social?--Nilfanion 15:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the mixup...you're probably right. I very vividly remember the 04 season though because I was living Florida back then and got hit by Frances, Ivan and Jeanne and had no power or heating for 12 days, but that's a different story. I'm glad you agree, some commentary on the social impact of the hurricanes will make this article more complete. AreJay 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but, given this article contains a list of the storms anyway, and almost all have their own article, do we need an intermediate page like List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, or perhaps it should just be merged here) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles for individual storms are relatively new. We're still working on converting the list page into a more concise list. That said, the current list page is longer than the entire current article, which is why it is separated. —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 21:00 UTC
  • Question - why are all the storm names bolded? I don't think they should be. Worldtraveller 17:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (italics), hurricane names should be in normal typeface (i.e., not italicized or bolded). AreJay 17:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The bolding of the storm names has been removed. The reason for it was felt finding an individual storm in the summary was difficult. I think with the box at the start of the section, which lists the storms in order, that isn't an issue now really.--Nilfanion 17:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that looks better. Another question, though - why are hurricanes on 'first name terms' throughout a lot of the article? I think for clarity and good writing wtyle it would be better to refer to 'Hurricane X' throughout, rather than calling it just X. Aso, from economic impact, Agriculture in multiple countries... - why not just many countries? A good proofread might uncover more such writing lapses. Worldtraveller 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree about the "Hurricane x" change; it would be horribly repetitive, especially in sentences where multiple storms are referred to. That said, they are written that way in the Storms section (e.g. "Hurricane Katrina devastated the coast..."), but are left on first-name basis throughout the rest of the article, for the same reason separate links to another article are not made adjacent to one another. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It also causes issues like with some phrasing, like with "Stan briefly reached hurricane strength before making landfall". Using the "hurricane X" format would make statements like that painful.--Nilfanion 19:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor object Support. The article states that "at least 2048" people were killed; however it gives figures of over 1600 for Katrina and over 2000 for Stan, plus more for other storms. That's over 3600 for Katrina and Stan combined, and some more if you add the other storms. "At least 2048" is technically not wrong if the true number is 3600+, but it's not overly consistent with the rest of the article. Otherwise, a great article about a difficult topic. My compliments. Kosebamse 20:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    It's difficult to make this clear - the National Hurricane Center acknowledges that over 2,000 deaths were caused by Stan and the extratropical system together, but only attributes 80 deaths to Stan alone. The other 1,920 deaths are not counted as directly the result of Stan (thus the total adding up to 2,048; only Katrina has a rising death toll). —Cuiviénen, Friday, 28 April 2006 @ 21:00 UTC
    In this case these difficulties should be explained (briefly), and/or the (apparently) conflicting figures should not be in the inrtoduction to avoid confusion. Kosebamse 21:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    That number has been removed now.--Nilfanion 21:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Objection withdrawn. Kosebamse 21:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • This is very good. I suppose I will support, although there are parts of the article that I think could use better referencing. Everyking 10:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say which bits you think the referencing could be improved on? It is possible those refs are absent as they are in the relevant storm article.--Nilfanion 11:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good and Strong SUPPORT. I've been watching this article since Tropical Storm Arlene formed and I've seen the remarkable progress its has made and the enormous amount of effort its editors have put into it. I sincerely believe that this article is one of the best Wikipedia has to offer.Omni ND 00:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has gone a long way. Pikachu9000 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is one of my favorite articles and deserves the FA category; has all the points that in my opinion makes an FA, since all the reports are done. Well done, Wikiproject Tropical Cyclones! It will be another FA material for our trophy case. juan andrés 18:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. Could definitely be better with some bits of the phrasing. NSLE (T+C) at 01:25 UTC (2006-05-02)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1138453287"