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 User:SandyGeorgia 16:57, 15 July 2008 [1].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean[edit]

Nominator(s): Plasticup
previous FAC

This article is well written, well sourced, conforms to WP:MOS, and is stable. It recently underwent a peer review which lead to a few polishing changes and gave me the confidence to submit this article as an FAC. I look forward to your thoughts. Plasticup T/C 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. Hurricane Dean is now linked in the infobox instead, to allow navigation back to the storm's main article. Plasticup T/C 17:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you changed all of the unit ranges from, for example, "12 to 14 cm" to "12-14 cm". Either one is acceptable, as long as it is consistent within the article. I don't have a preference either way, so I'll just leave it as is rather than change them all back. Also, in a moment, I'll see whether I can add some more commas, although, one you start down that road, things can get a little out of control, if you know what I mean. ;-) Plasticup T/C 12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure—too many commas is worse than too few. Generally, the longer the sentence and the more formal the context, the more ilkely you are to use optional commas. You're safe using them after sentence-initial prepositional phrases (In 2006, the). I'll check through quickly once you've done it. Also, en dash for ranges, not hyphens (see MOS). But I used en dashes. Punctuation is usually neater and easier to read than from ... to. TONY (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know about en dashes but, for the purposes of my example, I just didn't look up the symbol.Plasticup T/C 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mattisse added a comma or two. I cannot find anything else that deserves one. Plasticup T/C 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll run through quickly and see what I can find with a quick glance. — Deckiller 22:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually struggled with adding appropriate commas to the lead — 'appropriate' being relative to this type of article. There are plenty of opportunities for optional commas, but it wouldn't feel right in this register for some reason. — Deckiller 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences that you re-worded are great but I really don't think that all those commas are necessary. They make the prose hard to read. For example, this comma slows the reader without adding anything: "Once in the Caribbean Sea, the storm rapidly intensified to a Category 5 Hurricane". I am going to remove a few of them. Plasticup T/C 02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of opinion. I won't change to object based on the commas; I don't think Tony will either. If you feel it reads better, then very well. — Deckiller 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that non-breaking spaces were required between months and days. I think that I have fixed them all now. Plasticup T/C 01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also saw that you added "date=" to the ((cite web)) citations. I finished that task and checked the rest of the authors. Plasticup T/C 02:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now, (for future reference) WP:NBSP has changed.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm not sure how to say that any plainer. "Gained strength" is a pretty simple phrase. What do you mean by "better"? As it is I think the sentence conveys its meaning quickly and precisely, which is all I could ask for. Plasticup T/C 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Mattisse pointed out, that guideline was changed. See his comments below. I actually had them autoformatted when this review began, but someone removed the formatting. Plasticup T/C 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me. When it emerged into the bay it had been weakened. Plasticup T/C 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a pretty standard sentence construction. [3] Plasticup T/C 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that improve the article? Plasticup T/C 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an encylopedic word? It is a bigger word, but that doesn't make it a better word. Plasticup T/C 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I didn't know that. I thought that as the air cooled it rushed outwards from the storm. I'll have to do a little research, and then I'll amend this sentence appropriately. Plasticup T/C 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the warm air of the eyewall rises to about 12 km it creates high pressure near the tropopause. This powers the anti-cyclone sitting on top of the cyclone. The anti-cyclone is the outflow. So stronger storm → stronger anti-cyclone → stronger outflow. The hurricane improves its own outflow. Plasticup T/C 23:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The conditions were right. That's what the sentence is saying. Plasticup T/C 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It used to be, but I condensed it into one sentence. By having short, choppy sections like that it makes the reader speed up, giving the sense of rushing towards the hurricane's inevitable landfall. Grammatically it is sound and I like the effect. Plasticup T/C 22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I can break the last bit off into another sentence. That will make it easier to read without interrupting the rush. Plasticup T/C 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's sort of necessary in this case. Read it without the italics and it's not entirely clear is being said. Plasticup T/C 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as it is not excessive, text formatting can be used to great effect. See yawn for my favorite example. Plasticup T/C 12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Autoformatting dates is optional and there is an increasing movement against their use, per User:Tony1, the Feature Article Criteria guru. The reason is that autoformatting only works for registered users who have their preferences set, a small percentage of the Wikipedia readers. For the rest, it is just a jumble of blue. See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT. Right now the issue is in a transitional phase. See [4], for example. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as it was the prose style that initially drew me into the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I actually asked Juliancolton to review this article for me, so I feel bad rejecting so much of his advice. I think the problem is that by now so many people have read through this article that there isn't much more to fix. I appreciate his help nonetheless. Plasticup T/C 23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Well, it appears the things I listed aren't a problem, so you have my support. Good work. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:15, 15 July 2008 (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