Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Irene (2005)

Hurricane Irene (2005)[edit]

Self-nom, as this is yet another article from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. However, this article is slightly different from the rest: the hurricane did not make landfall. In spite of that fact, the article is comprehensive on everything else, and we believe it meets featured article criteria, so we're giving it a shot, to also know how to prepare non-landfalling storms in the future. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe combine the "Impact" and "Records and Naming" sections? They're quite stubby. Kirill Lok s h in 22:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - it's only just over 8kb in length, and I don't believe such a short article can really represent the 'very best of Wikipedia'. It's a fine short article - listed at Wikipedia:Good articles and exactly the sort of thing that should be listed there - but I don't think it's substantial enough to be featurable. Worldtraveller 22:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time I checked, article size was not a requirement for featured article status; WP:WIAFA states that the article has to be "of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail," and that is what the article does. As several editors commented on Wikipedia talk:Good articles, an article's size or scope was not a disqualifying condition for FAC, but rather its quality. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no fixed length that an FA has to exceed, but I really just don't think something so short, on an unremarkable storm, can be said to exemplify 'our very best work' as required by FA criterion 1. Worldtraveller 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can, as our very best work is better than no work, which is what happens with other encyclopedias and gives Wikipedia an edge over them. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to elaborate on my objection to such short articles becoming featured. I've said already they don't meet criterion #1, as far as I am concerned, and if you compare this article to most other already-featured articles, they're in another league. I just randomly picked out Matthew Brettingham, Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve, Irish poetry, and each of these is just miles better than this article - more interesting, more enjoyable to read, a more engrossing read.
I don't think the article can be said to meet criterion 2b either, by virtue of its length, and its subject matter. It's been said that subject matter is no bar to featured status, but I think the criteria themselves implicitly discriminate against minor subjects. Well written is defined in WP:WIAFA as compelling, even brilliant prose - something pretty much impossible to achieve in an article on an unremarkable storm. Simply, when writing about something notable and significant, like say Hurricane Mitch or something like that, one can write brilliant, compelling prose, but when one is writing about something unremarkable which happens many times each year, the prose is necessarily more pedestrian. Well written in the normal sense, but not compelling or brilliant, as required of an FA.
I think it would be harmful to featured articles generally if this one passes, as it seems to me to lower the bar quite substantially. I think I'd ask myself why I've bothered to write articles 20-30kb in length to nominate for featured status, if something just 8kb long is considered representative of the very best of wikipedia. I think it would damage FA's credibility as the 'very best' of Wikipedia if something is listed but not considered suitable for the front page because it's such a short article.
I do not by any means think this is a bad article. I think it's very good, as good as it can be for what it is about. But I don't think it's an example of the very best Wikipedia can produce. I think the numerous comments saying it shouldn't appear on the main page also support that. Worldtraveller 21:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - Well, risking sounding like a broken record, I completely disagree with this viewpoint. I may be too dense, but I cannot see how being short makes the prose immediately unremarkable, or pedestrian, as you called it. The variety of sentence structures, the choice of words and literary devices in a sonnet don't make it less compelling to read than a novel, and the same is true for encyclopedia articles. Additionally, every featured article is measured on its own merits, and precluding inclusion of narrower topics for the highest quality distinction removes any sort of incentive to clean small articles to featured standard.
      You also mention that it lowers the bar. Where is that bar currently, I might ask? There's none. There are several features that FAs are required to have, such as inline citations, proper layout/format, and decent illustrations, to name a few, and if an article passes that bar, then it might be given the chance to stand on its own as a FA. Also, Raul has mentioned that any article that is able to survive AFD is eligible for FAC; if you so insist, try nominating Tropical Storm Lee (2005) for deletion, and let's see where the consensus falls.
      
      Finally, you insist that having this as an FA would make editors not write longer articles, yet I haven't seen any other editor indicate the same attitude. Perhaps it might be that getting an article to pass the most rigorous quality test on Wikipedia is enough motivation for other editors to write comprehensive articles, as long as they may need to be. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much the shortness but the relative insignificance that makes the prose pretty much impossible to raise beyond pedestrian. If you've had a routine day, much the same as any other day, you're unlikely to overflow with rhetorical flourish when describing it, but if you've done someting significant and interesting, you can work up a compelling description of it. As for incentives, I created WP:GA for exactly that purpose, because I believed that FA was rightly not going to identify two-section articles as the very best that Wikipedia can produce. GA has drifted from its original mission; I was going to create Wikipedia:Excellent short articles but if 8kb is now fine for an FA there's really not much point.
There is of course supposed to be a bar, above which articles are considered the 'very best'. If a very short article on an unremarkable storm has been designated as the very best, I think that has considerably lowered the bar. If FAs are to be divided into 'FAs good enough for the front page' and 'FAs not good enough for the front page', as this discussion has implied, then a two-tier system has been created, with one tier no longer representing the very best.
As for motivation, all I can say is that having many times spent a couple of weeks researching and writing thorough articles on significant subjects, working with other editors to hone and polish them, and then having the pleasure of seeing those identified as the very best that Wikipedia can produce, now I see this article which I could probably have written in a couple of hours identified as the very best I feel thoroughly demotivated. Describing FA as the very best now seems less meaningful - it seems more to define the qualities that all articles should meet, rather than identifying the few which stand out from the rest as exceptional quality. Worldtraveller 23:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I do want to stress that I don't think this article is deficient or in any way below the standards it should be - just that I thought FA was about identifying the select few articles that stand out from the crowd rather than just identifying articles that meet the standards all articles should meet. Worldtraveller 23:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. In my opinion, the sources this article is based upon are insufficient for this to be an FA. The NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report is the single significant source used by the article; the others are four brief NHC bulletins and one small news article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC) I've had second thought about this particular objection. See below. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We could use news stories for the sourcing for the storm history; but they would only be based on NHC data and it would be inaccurate as a result (the TCR is different from the at-the-time data).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above are valid points, and could potentially stop this from becoming an FA. I'll go point by point on the Featured Article Criteria. 1) It's hard to exemplify the best work when it is this short, so I'll ignore this for now. 2) It's well written, comprehensive for such a storm, referenced, neutral, and is very stable. 3) Styling is fine. 4) There's three images, possibly too few, but images aren't a requirement. 5) It's tightly focused on the storm, and, obviously, not too long. Currently, I'm neutral. The main reason why this FAC is important is how to better all TC articles. Recently, all storms in 2005 were given articles, including non-landfalling storms like Irene. Comments would be greatly appreciated on this type of storm so we know what to do for the other articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article is a fine short article. The only thing I don't like, and it's something I don't like about all the hurricane articles I've seen recently, is the link to the portal. I've seen links to portals from the article about the portal's theme, but never so many from articles that fall within a portal's scope. It seems to me like such widespread self-referencing should be avoided. Worldtraveller 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only actionable thing I can think of is to get permission to use a picture of the surf (see the external link). I don't see why a short article, as long as it is complete, cannot exemplify Wikipedia's best work; IMO some of the best articles in paper encyclopedias are short.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Technical Support. The requirements are met, but the article still seems to be lacking something. RyanG e rbil10 01:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. My objection above -- this article has basically one source -- was a namby-pamby attempt to dance around my real issue with this article becoming an FA. It hinted at it though: the reason there is only one source regarding this hurricane is that this hurricane is not notable. I know: notability isn't an FA criteria. There is an unwritten policy, though -- I believe Raul654 will back me up on this -- that any article that can survive AfD can in theory become an FA. Here's where I'm going to make people mad: I do not believe that this article should survive a (hypothetical) AfD. It describes a weather system that had essentially no impact whatsoever. It is a tree falling in the forest, heard only by forecasters at the National Hurricane Center. It should be merged to Non-landfall hurricanes of 2005 or some article like that. It should not be an FA because it should not be an article on its own. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, the powder keg exploded. :) There has been so much discussion about this very issue, it's nauseating; the discussion at the article's talk page is just a snippet of the mess surrounding this issue, which occupies at least several archives worth of discussion, and which has concluded that every storm should have an article. An even less notable storm, Hurricane Cindy, had a previous AFD which had a result of keep. Therefore, the issue, as I see it, is whether there's an incentive to develop smaller articles by making them featured or not. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - FA is an incentive to make longer articles truly excellent and represntative of the very best that can be produced. The still-nascent Wikipedia:Good articles was designed as an incentive for editors of short articles like this one to make sure they are referenced, illustrated, well written, structured, etc. Worldtraveller 10:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - But the problem with GA is that it is not accepted as a parallel replacement process for small articles; this is seen by WP:WIAGA's standards, which are relaxed when compared with Featured article standards. Many editors also see it as a "it's close, but not FA yet" system, and this ambiguity is what makes it unsuitable for WP:1.0 purposes. Anyways, that's slightly outside the scope of this page, so I'll continue writing about this at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hurricane Cindy (2005) was more notable than this storm in my opinion; higher winds != more notable. With three fatalities and some flooding, it wasn't just wind and rain falling on an empty ocean. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the least notable storm of the season, Tropical Storm Lee, had to go through quite a battle between editors who wanted it merged and not, and it was still kept separate. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sure. I just happen to be one person who disagrees with that decision. I'm not sure where that leaves my objection, to be honest; I'll continue to object on the grounds that I don't feel this should be a stand-alone article at all, but the more who support this FAC, the weaker my argument becomes as consensus the other way is shown more and more clearly. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Object~~—"much improved". Tony 04:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC) fails Criterion 1. To display this stubby piece (stubby overall and stubby subsections) as one of WP's best articles would be unfortunate. I wonder why the scope can't be broadened to include more storms of similar type or from the same period. Then we could be proud of it as an example of 'our best work'. Criterion 2a also fails. Here are examples from the bottom of the text.[reply]

"it weakened back into a tropical storm" (Awkward/redundant)

"As Hurricane Irene stayed well away from land, no coastal warnings or watches were issued for Hurricane Irene." (Repetition)

"Many beaches in New Jersey restricted swimming due to the increased risk of rip currents and lifeguards had to carry out a number of rescues" (A few well-placed commas, here and throughout, would be kinder to our readers.)

"upper level shear" (AmEng uses fewer hyphens than other varieties, but US editors would still insist on a hyphen here.)

"uncertainties on how the subtropical ridge would interact" ("on" is awkward)

Addressed all of those, except the comment at the top. The scope cannot be broadened because editors do not agree on merging the content anywhere, and the places where it could be merged, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, are already featured. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but these were only examples; the whole text needs proper editing to be 'compelling, even brilliant', as required of FAs. Can you let us know when that has been done, so it can be reviewed? Tony 04:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have submitted it if I hadn't thought that the text wasn't "compelling", so I don't know what to fix, unless someone points it out to me. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could make a start on the issues that I've exemplified above: sifting through for redundancies, and places where commas would assist the reader. Reading it aloud, sentence by sentence, often helps. You could ask other WPs to help, too. Only 20 minutes' work by an experienced editor would be required. Tony 05:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had done so already, but I followed your suggestion and had another user do exactly that already. How does it look now? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The sudden peril of the storm's existence", "The wave continued to organize"—apparently strange expressions. "predicting the storm's survival"—do you mean 'predicting that the storm would survive? (ambiguous). "make landfall in the United States, or at least pass close to North Carolina"—Do you see why this is awkward? Tony 06:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these specific concerns.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to think about this one a little, but I'm going to go with support. If it says everything there is to say and is notable enough for an article, then the content level should be satisfactory. I think as an FA it would serve as a nice model for writing other articles on these relatively obscure storms that don't affect land (which I do think should have articles). I would be quite happy if we get a whole bunch of fairly short but still entirely complete and well-written articles on obscure tropical storms; I can't see how that could possibly be a bad thing. But that being said, definitely expand it if possible. Everyking 10:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have done a light copyedit. This seems like almost the perfect featured article to me; comprehensive, concise, well-written, well-illustrated, well-referenced. Well done. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have been thinking about how to vote for this article for a rather long time. My decision to support is based on the fact that the article is comprehensive, compelling and presents all information presently available about the storm. That is all that a FA must achieve for me to support. I must agree that this hurricane is of less relevance than land-falling systems but that's not the point of FA. It's referenced, well-written and comprehensive. Joelito (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems quite well-done to me, and meets all the criteria. We should have an article this good on every hurricane. Tuf-Kat 01:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this meets all the criteria and is hardly so small that we should compel it to be merged. It is more than substantial enough to stand on its own. I would be nice to keep it off the main page, though. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to that. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support For a hurricane that didn't touch land this one is good enough to be FA. Its understandable why this hurricane has little information on it. Tarret 21:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Comment: While this is a short article, as much as can be said about this hurricane is said here, and it meets the rest of the criteria. I am inclined to agree with Christopher Parham that it would be best for this to be a non main-pageable articles so as to avoid unnecessarily restarting the debate about whether this article should exist or not. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if it's so short that people wouldn't like to see it on the main page, doesn't that argue that it does in fact fail to meet criterion 1? Worldtraveller 04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it just means that there's more notable articles that can be showcased, without denying any merits to this article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't see how saying it's not notable enough to appear on the main page is consistent with it genuinely being considered an example of the very best we can produce. Worldtraveller 16:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's saying "Why even contemplate this article for the main page when there are many more similar articles on more notable storms?" Only way this one would see the main page is if 5+ out of the years main page FAs were tropical cyclones, and thats overkill on a relatively small subject area.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying that the subject isn't notable isn't the same as saying the article isn't high-quality. --AySz88 ^-^ 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I'm ready to see a new type of featured article. Bring it on! Icelandic Hurricane #12 16:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object It is well written enough. However it is definitely notable enough to have a place on WP, I don't think it has enough notablility to be an FA. Raichu 00:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have say that that is inventing a new FA criteria on the fly. See the Featured Article criteria. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the same as your own objection?--Nilfanion (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; Bunchofgrapes said it shouldn't be on Wikipedia, either. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 11:49 UTC

The nature of the subject matter is not relevant. Under current policy, any article on Wikipedia can become an FA regardless of the perceived fitness of the subject by some users; if it is important enough to be on Wikipedia, then it is important enough to become an FA. If you want to suggest regulation on what types of articles can become featured, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles as it relates to policy and not to any specific article. If you want an example of a ridiculous subject that is a featured article, I point you to exploding whale. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 11:49 UTC
- I think this is more of an understanding than an actual policy. I don't think it's written down anywhere. Worldtraveller 16:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy is that anything not on Wikipedia:What is a featured article? is not a criterion for being a featured article. "Subject matter" is not a criterion. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 15 May 2006 @ 21:17 UTC
Support This article meets all the criteria for an FA. Doesn't matter the size, or the notability of the storm. juan andrés 00:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with there is better articles to the main page! Jonatanj 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very well written article, though it is a bit too short.Jordy