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 Ian Rose 10:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hurricane Hattie[edit]

Hurricane Hattie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC), User:TheAustinMan[reply]

I worked on this article earlier this year, and with assistance from User:TheAustinMan (who I have offered to help me with the FAC as a co-nominator), I believe it is ready for FAC. It's a significant historical hurricane - one of the strongest, latest hurricanes, as well as one of the deadliest in Belize. The article uses a variety of sources, so I believe it passes all of the FA criteria. Enjoy :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looks pretty good, should be a support after minor fixes. --Rschen7754 08:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. It's not a road article, so hope it wasn't too bad! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose: generally cleanly written with a few rough patches that could use some tightening here and there
  • which indicated that Hattie reached hurricane status → "which indicated that Hattie had reached hurricane status", as the indication occurred after Hattie's reaching hurricane status
  • Early on October 29, a trough extended from Nicaragua through Florida; based on the trough and climatology for similar hurricanes, Hattie was expected to continue northward. – Is there any way this can be worded more concisely?
  • I changed the first portion to "a trough that extended...' and made it shorter. That work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • sustained winds were estimated at over 150 mph (240 km/h) – "estimated at over" sounds rather odd, imo. Later on, "potentially as strong as 200 mph (325 km/h)" doesn't seem congruent with the preceding clause it's supposed to modify.
  • I moved the winds to the impact section, since it didn't feel like it was meant there. I clarified who estimated the winds, too, based on MWR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the Miami Weather Bureau first began issuing advisories on Hattie, the agency noted the potential for heavy rainfall in the southwestern Caribbean, which could have caused flash flooding. – Tighten to "Upon initiating advisories on Hattie, the Miami Weather Bureau noted the potential for heavy rainfall and flash flooding in the southwestern Caribbean."?
  • Hurricane Hattie first posed a threat to the Yucatán Peninsula and British Honduras on October 30, when it first turned toward the area. – redundancy: "first... first"
  • warned of the threat for high tides → tighten to "warned of high tides"?
  • I disagree, since they were warning of what could happened. "Warned of high tides" sounds like they were saying that while it was happening, which wasn't the case. There was forewarning. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the people in the capital – another example of something that could easily be tightened (e.g. "Most residents in the capital")
  • A hospital in the city was evacuated,[12] and a school operated as a shelter. – I don't feel "and" serves as a proper conjunction here, as those two clauses are totally unrelated.
  • While nearing the island, the airport was closed due to tropical storm-force winds. – Watch out for dangling participles such as this one, where the participial phrase modifies the wrong noun.
  • A manager of United Press International described Belize City as "nothing but a huge pile of matchsticks,"[12] and the roads were either flooded for days or covered with mud. – Again, "and" feels out of place here, linking two unrelated bits of information.
  • Heavy usage of "due to", some instances borderline erroneous, in the first part of the aftermath section.
  • Which ones in particular? I think the "due to"s work where they are. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath could do with better flow. For example: "At the city's police station, workers provided fresh water and rice to storm victims. In the days after the storm, roads were flooded or otherwise impassable due to debris. Many residents throughout British Honduras donated supplies to the storm victims" → relief supplies - impassable roads - relief supplies. Earlier on, the article mentions three newspaper's inability to operate, and much later on it again covers business operations (post office). I suggest going through the section and rearranging it where appropriate.
  • The big problem here was that I mention road conditions twice. I removed the second, redundant one. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four other ships had sailed to the territory to provide assistance,[27] along with 458,000 lb (208,000 kg) of food – Why the switch to the past perfect (had sailed) here? Also, what kind of assistance other than the food?
  • Source didn't say about assistance other than food. Removed "had". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, tighten to "Four other ships sailed to the territory to provide 458,000 lb (208,000 kg) of food"? Auree ★★ 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mexican government sent three flights of food and medicine to the territory – "sent flights of" makes for odd wording
  • Still unusual to me -- how about "with food"? Auree ★★ 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name Hattie was retired and will never be used by an Atlantic hurricane again. – I hope that's supposed to be "used for"?
  • Overall, the aftermath has several stubby, terse sentences; although brevity is important to good writing I feel as though the section could be mended into a more seamless whole.
  • I merged a few sentences. Hopefully that's better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Content: seems adequate, just a few quibbles
  • There was speculation that Hattie contributed to the development of Simone, and later Tropical Storm Inga after the systems merged. – Which systems merged? Hattie and Simone or Simone and Inga? Or all three of them?
  • Actually the remnants of Simone merged with some additional disturbed weather, which I have added into the article. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • although some shelters were unsafe and were destroyed in the hurricane – I feel as though this tidbit in the preparations section borders on impact
  • I moved the sentence and changed the content to better reflect its position in the section. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • although the reef recovered after the storm – Do we know how long it took the reef to recover?
  • The source does not give any indicator of time other than 'subsequently.' TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 20 also mentions something about damage to sugarcane crops, but the article doesn't reflect this
  • The sentence in which ref. 20 is located notes of "several factories" damaged in the region, which would include the sugar crop factory which was damaged in the news source.
  • I also recall reading about damage to the actual sugarcane crops, not just the factories. I may be wrong, though Auree ★★ 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a little bit about sugar cane crop being disrupted, which I added. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, although a minor discrepancy, source 30 gives a damage total of $62 million for British Honduras, compared to the $60 million mentioned in the article. Do you feel the source is reliable enough to go with the higher total?
  • $60 million originates from the Monthly Weather Review, and the $62 million comes from a newspaper. Though the MWR is more reliable, the newspaper comes 10 years later. Since I'm not the main contributor, I'll let Hink decide. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1970, the government built Belmopan as the new capital, located on higher ground – I doubt they built the city in just one year; rather, construction work was finished by then. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "As a result of the destruction in Belize City, the government proposed and later began work on a new capital, located on higher ground. Work on the new capital, Belmopan, was completed in 1970." TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 16:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will do a check of the citations later on. Auree ★★ 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you still planning to perform this check, Auree? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies, there was a slight delay due to other obligations, but I have been going over the citations with User:The Austin Man off-site, and they're looking better already. We're planning on tying up any loose ends by tomorrow. For the sake of inclusion, I'll provide a brief summary of what was discussed (and resolved).Auree ★★ 05:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was some confusion as to the difference between the author and publisher fields, which were being used interchangeably at the time. I've cleared this up with the editors now, and it has been fixed throughout.
  • Some sources were using the wrong citation templates (i.e. cite web was used in place of both cite report and cite press release); this has now been amended.
  • Minor inconsistencies in date and title formatting remained, all cleared up now.
  • Some fixes to newspaper sources are still required, and source 27 needs more appropriate formatting, which will all be seen to tomorrow.
  • Lastly, but most importantly, I have done spotchecks on many of the sources, and all supported their claims without close paraphrasing. Auree ★★ 06:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More