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 promoted by Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [1].


1991 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

1991 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like collecting stars and rewards... no, that doesn't work.

I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make WP:100K happen! Eh... that's kinda dead.

I am nominating this for featured article because I worked on it a lot last month and it's part of a featured topic I'm working on and I really like it and I found some neat info on the season and I got some favorable responses to it and I hope you like it too! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative note - Since Hurricanehink has indicated that he is going to be busy over the next few days preparing for Hurricane Irene myself and other project members will keep an eye on this FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jason, I should be good now since the storm damage wasn't bad here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--12george1 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the FAC arena, and I do not have much time to work, so I will focus on prose nitpicks. If any of my comments run against the spirit of what a featured article should be, feel free to call me out on it.

Probably the most significant comment I have is that I'd prefer to see jargon (like Cape Verde-type hurricane, for example) defined in the article. I like situations like the Metallicity section of the featured article on the star Tau Ceti, which actually defines metallicity and its relevance to astronomy before even delving into how it relates to Tau Ceti itself. To go into such detail really helps dumb things down for the layperson (again, an outsider like me), and helps people to fully understand the topic.

I apologize that this is not much; I will examine the article more if time permits, but I cannot give guarantees. Hope this helps. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review—I tried to address your points. As for having separate sections for meteorological terms: in some cases this is possible (e.g. explaining what a major hurricane is), but in some cases, we have very long and detailed articles already (e.g. tropical cyclogenesis) that adequately cover the main topic, IMO. That said, I'll give a technical jargon review to the article shortly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, yep, you did. Good job. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • offshore the southeast United Statesoff the southeast United States?
  • existed without significantly affecting landdid not significantly affect land?
  • dropped heavy rainfall. — rained heavily?
    • Im not happy with either sentence, but i cant quite figure out how to rework it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I changed it to "with significant accompanying rains." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • $200 million in damage and causing coastal damage from Puerto Rico to Florida and northward through Canada. — Is that USD figure just for the US, or does it include Canada?
  • released his annual forecast for the season, which he began doing in 1984. — I know what you mean, but it looks as if it took him seven years to do the forecast
    • Jason Rees changed the latter clause to " which he had issued since 1984". I believe that is much clearer that it is referring to his annual forecasts beginning in 1984. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eight tropical storms was the lowest in four years — not grammatical, lowest number perhaps?
  • dropped rainfall (Bob) — rained?
    • I changed the entire sentence in question to "As the storm moved up the coast, it produced rains in its western portion." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurricane Hunters — no link or explanation, I've no idea what these are. Also, should there be an apostrophe?

Support - Bodnotbod's review with reference to FA criteria: SUPPORT *Judgement: Weak oppose due to reasons given below, with view to every intention of supporting at some later date.

  • Professional but dull at times. I struggled to remain engaged with the article. I'm only human so I naturally found the storms that caused damage to be more interesting than the weather events that drifted about a bit but caused no human drama. So I was engaged when learning that GWB's house had suffered damage, but for those tropical storms that were uneventful I did find it hard to keep my attention on what I was reading. However, does this mean I'm calling for change? I'm not sure I am. The cost of just telling us the exciting bits would be that the article would be less complete and we are aiming for comprehensive coverage of the topic. So I guess I accept that were I more of a 'hurricane person' then I would want to know about the less eventful storms too.
  • Honestly, and I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a cop-out, but that's because the storms were that boring. Only two of them (Bob and the Perfect Storm) were remotely interesting in terms of human impact. Fabian was a joke, and if Danny and Erika had never formed, no one would have ever known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, I trust. I'm not qualified to say, so I have to place my trust in the editors(s). I'm happy to do that on this occasion.
  • Great. No complaints here.
  • No issues. Not the sort of article that would suffer from issues on this score, perhaps.
  • Excellent. No sign of issues here, having checked the history of the article over the last year.
  • Excellent
  • Excellent: takes a chronological approach which makes perfect sense. Easy to find individual storms/hurricanes if one wishes.
  • Defer to others - I believe other reviewers have looked the citations over, so I'll not address those.
  • Pass - Images seem to be from some institute, and I assume they are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.
  • Pass - Article is concise and has links to other main articles for the more eventful storms.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.