The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the criteria to be considered as such. Overall, the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most busy on record, with nineteen named storms. Despite the high number of systems, none of hurricane intensity or major hurricane intensity struck the United States. I hope you like this timeline as it took a lot of work! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --12george1 (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Hello TropicalAnalystwx13, I got a few queries before I support:
  • "400 UTC (12:00 a.m. EDT) – The 2010 Atlantic hurricane season officially begins." - I believe the Atlantic hurricane seasons start at 0000 UTC on June 1, not 12:00 a.m. EDT June 1.
  • "80 mi (130 km)[nb 3] north-northeast of Puerto Lempira." - You should probably mention the name of the country (Honduras), since most people have probably never heard let alone know where Puerto Lempira is.
  • "Tropical Storm Alex makes its first landfall near" - WikiLink "landfall"
  • "Hurricane Alex attains its peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of 110 mph (175 km/h) and a minimum barometric pressure of 946 mb (hPa; 27.94 inHg), and simultaneously makes its second and final landfall near Soto la Marina." - Avoid using "its" more than once in a sentence. I would suggest revising the latter part of the sentence to: "and simultaneously made a second and final landfall near Soto la Marina." By the way, WikiLink "maximum sustained winds" and "barometric pressure", and add the parameter
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "on record" only just thought about this, when did your "records" begin? Worth noting (e.g. "one of the most active Atlantic hurricane seasons since records began in xxxx").
  • "Although Hurricane Alex formed on June 15, the season officially began on June 1 and ended on November 30," I don't understand at all. Are you suggesting that the season's official start date was such in spite of Alex forming 14 days later?
    • No. It's just meant as a comparison for when the first storm formed against the start of the season. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well I'd say it the other way around, like "the season officially began on June 1 with the first hurricane, Hurricane Alex, forming on June 15..." or similar. RIght now the sentence is completely confusing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure you need to keep repeating "Hurricane" in front of the storm names, it's pretty clear that you're not suddenly talking about some bloke called Igor and removing the repetition would improve the prose.
  • Is there a definition or a link for "gale diameter"?
  • Timeline image needs to comply with WP:DASH for the speed ranges.
  • "Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale, becoming the first hurricane of the 2010 season.[6]" three times hurricane in one sentence!
  • Is there a link for inHg? Non-experts may not get this at all.
  • "a non-convective remnant area of low pressure" what is one of those?
  • "Tropical Storm Gaston on September 4" but Gaston had become a "non-convective remnant" by September 2...

Times and standards change I'm afraid. Just because it wasn't spotted last time, it doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing my point that I don't think here is the best place for this discussion, given that this could affect hundreds of articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but the comment still applies to this FLC. You said your project had decided it was fine, it isn't fine for FLCs I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Hurricanehink said, it affects the whole project, so this issue is pretty much inactionable for the time being. Were there any other comments that needed to be addressed? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's clearly actionable at any time, should people have the effort to do so. If that's not the case, that's a different matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've capped the concerns that were addressed. I need to leave this one open because nothing seems to be being done about it. A shame because FLC prides itself on a strong compliance with ACCESS, particularly when two people support despite the clear failure to meet one of the fundamental criteria for FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've yet to respond on the WPTC talk page about the matter, which is where the main discussion is taking place. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed your invitation... What is WPTC? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Tropical Cyclones (WPTC)...the talk page discussion. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that, cool. Yeah, I remember stumbling over that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to comment here on my talk page regarding the template. Colors without matching symbols are violations of WP:ACCESS, and I don't see how the template in use here can be considered anything other than a violation. I'm sorry to have to say that, but I don't believe that the list should be promoted with a known issue such as this. To me it is perfectly actionable, and something that has been mentioned at FLC many times before. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. According to WP:ACCESS, it is a violation that if a article or list using color the same information can be made via another method. The policy only lists an accessible symbol as an example, another option for instance is footnote labels. In this case, the information can be displayed just be scrolling up. Furthermore, the policy says regarding to color that "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information." YE Pacific Hurricane 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is: The template is there for navigation. It should not be considered as part of the informational flow of the document. If we have no colors, then sighted people don't know the intensities, and blind people don't know the intensities. Note that the intensities is simply to make navigation simpler; this is not the only, nor is it remotely the primary, place that this information is contained. If we have colors, then sighted people can see the intensities, and blind people still don't know the intensities. As far as they are concerned, nothing is being lost. No data is being obscured; they have the same ability they had before there were colors to click through to the articles in question and find out the intensities. That a navigational template helps one class of people more than another is not a sign that the other is being harmed. Now, if that information were being portrayed in the list itself, or in the article, in a fashion that blind users could not access, THAT would be a major problem. But that's not the case here. This is a navigational aid that is more helpful to some users than others. (I mean, it also technically discriminates against people who don't know what the letters mean) The only legitimate complaint I could see is if the colors made it impossible for the colorblind to differentiate and read the letters. To quote Yellow Evan's citation of policy, "Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information." The information in a navigational template can never be considered important, as it is a drastically reduced subset if the information available in the articles they link to. --Golbez (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anyone bother to reply to this? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would be easier to just fix it, and enjoy the benefit being rolled out across all the articles where this is used. It's not up to us to decide what's "important" or not to those readers who depend on WP:ACCESS to make the most of the website. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about what is easiest. It is about what is right. It's easy to make an article without any sources, but is it the right thing to do? No. While you disagree with me on this, I don't think there is a need for such a change. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't affect this nomination, since those templates are used on hundreds of articles, not specifically this one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the accessibility concern is bogus IMO per the above arguments. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<--There's no inherent need to link storm "B" to "TS" though. There is only one storm B, and the template links to it fine, regardless of colour. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 15 March 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