Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2002 Atlantic hurricane season/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

2002 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

12 articles
Featured article 2002 Atlantic hurricane season
Hurricane Lili- Peak.JPG
Good article Tropical Storm Arthur
Good article Tropical Storm Bertha
Good article Tropical Storm Cristobal
Featured article Tropical Storm Edouard
Good article Tropical Storm Fay
Featured article Hurricane Gustav
Featured article Tropical Storm Hanna
Good article Hurricane Isidore
Featured article Hurricane Kyle
Good article Hurricane Lili
Featured list Timeline


Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, TropicalAnalystwx13, Juliancolton, Coredesat, User:Thegreatdr, TheNobleSith

I realized today that the topic passes all of the criteria for featured topic, so I figured I'd nominate it, seeing as I was responsible for a few of the articles. As you can see, there have been a lot of people working on the topic. I hope you like it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2012

  • Question could you please remind me again why your project thinks that tropical storms that have minimal damage and one indirect causalities deserve their own WP article? I am getting more and more convinced that you guys get to GA too many articles that don't really deserve any more than some extended entry in the season article/list. Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The information on Arthur and Cristobal would make the section in the season article a bit long. I generally agree with merging low-impact storm articles, including in the case of Arthur or Cristobal. However, seeing as merging them wouldn't affect whether it's FT or not, is that a problem for this nomination? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Technically I am not opposing, but I cannot support a topic which has articles that should be technically AfDed. Nergaal (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Why should they be AFD'd? We don't usually AFD articles in the project, we merge them :P. Anyway, Arthur and Cristobal are respectable article that may look bloated in their season article. And I personally feel that I'd rather have a short to medium sized article (which would likely contain more information) than a long season section. WP is not paper. In answer to your first question, if you want to see a good example about why we keep such things, see Talk:Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) or Talk:Tropical Storm Don (2011) (the former is now part of an FT). FYI Nergaal, we have merged quite a bit of articles the past 6 months or so. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
          • To be fair, I would rather have a long season section actually, considering people are more likely to read the whole season article than an individual article. But, as YE said, the articles shouldn't be deleted but rather merged, considering there would be useful content to carry over. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
              • I find it easier to read an article instead of a section. But as Hink said, when a topic is a GTC/FTC/GT/FT, it is best to leave the somewhat borderline articles alone. Either way, I support this topic as an FT. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • As the one who "saved" the main article from an FA downgrade after the List of Storms article was merged, I support--12george1 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)--12george1 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment the book report shows several cleanup tag being present in those articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment—I'm leaning to support; but the parent article still has a disambiguation needed tag. I'd also be tempted to list the timeline before any of the individual storms but that's entirely aesthetic. GRAPPLE X 12:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, dab fixed. And the timeline position is the same as other featured topics (such as 2006 Atlantic hurricane season). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, then. Support. GRAPPLE X 13:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Many many deadlinks remain present in several articles. See the "ext links" tool in the book reports. I tagged some of the dead links. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Update, it's possible that most of those are due to server maintenance at the NCDC. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Yea, they've been working on that for the past few weeks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I hate to rush, but is there any progress on this? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)