I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it follows all of the FA criteria. Granted, my opinion is biased, and it's up to all of you, but, for what it's worth, it was rated A-class by the WPTC, copyedited by several editors, and got a favorable GA review. So, as I always say, here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article does not follow the manual style on dates, and is underreferenced. All statistics and points of specific fact should be cited. A common rule of thumb is a minimum of one citation per paragraph. -Fsotrain09 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
How does it not follow the manual of style? Also, every statement in the article is sourced, other than the lede (not needed) and the fact its name was re-used (which doesn't really need a citation, since the Wikilinks show it is obvious that the name was reused). --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
"The Comisión Nacional del Agua distributed 1.6 million gallons (6 million liters) of water and provided repair equipment to the 173 localities whose water systems were damaged", for example, is not cited. Now, if you are using one source for a paragraph of prose statistics, that's fine. The Manual of Style says full mm/dd/yyyy dates should be wikilinked. Since the dates the article refers to occur within one calendar year, they should not be linked. -Fsotrain09 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
About the references - the way I source is I place a source at the end of every block. Section A gets ref A, and section B gets ref B, though Section A and section B might be in the same paragraph, or potentially even in the same sentence. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I got those. "Operationally" means how it was treated in real time, so I've adjusted the wording to be clearer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. No problems. Epbr123 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, significant jargon and other issues:Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There is some jargon in the lead that could use explaining or wikilinking. An example is "low-level circulation" and "tropical storm". The differences between tropical storms, tropical cyclones, and hurricanes are not apparent to general readership and may cause some confusion. I think it is out of the scope of this article to explain the differences, but they should at least all be wikilinked so people can go look it up.
Likewise for the term "wave axis" used in reference to a tropical wave. Even the article on tropical waves does not explain what the axis is.
"On August 31, the two primary areas of convection were well-removed from the center, and by early on September 1, even though deep convection was still not well-organized, the low-cloud circulation was sufficiently well-defined that the National Hurricane Center designated it as Tropical Depression Ten-E while centered slightly less than 350 miles (565 km) south of Cabo San Lucas." Too long, suggest breaking up. What is Tropical Depression Ten-E? How is that different from a hurricane? Is Ten-E part of some naming scheme?
"In real time, the National Hurricane Center first upgraded the system 21 hours later." I don't understand what this means.
"Late on September 1 it intensified into Tropical Storm Isis..." This phrase and others preceding it assume that the reader understands the progression of a hurricane through various upgrades, but this progression is probably relatively unknown to most people. I can deduce that perhaps it went from a tropical wave to a tropical depression to a tropical storm to a hurricane.. is that right? But then what is a tropical cyclone, which is mentioned in the lead?
"Coinciding with the issuance of the first advisory on Isis..." Who issued the first advisory? The only organization mentioned thus far in the article is the National Hurricane Center. Are we to assume they issued all the warnings/upgrades/downgrades mentioned in the article? Needs significant clarification.
San Diego County is not mentioned in the Preparations heading, yet you said earlier they were affected by the storm. There were no warnings, advisories, or preparations there? If not, why not?
"A married couple were killed..." Grammar.
"Initially, reports indicated a family was missing in La Paz, though they were later proven false." Trivial. In fact, I'm not sure it's necessary to report individuals who were missing or killed - maybe just report the general numbers. Thoughts?
"The heaviest rainfall fell..." Seems redundant.
I don't think "minorly" is a word. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
There is very little difference between tropical cyclone, tropical storms, and hurricanes; they just differ on location and strength, which is explained in the tropical cyclone article. I clarified that low-level circulation really just means surface circulation, which I believe is self-explanatory. I removed "axis" from "wave axis". I cleaned up and clarified that sentence. In real time..., which was previously listed as operationally, means how the storm was treated while it was active, as opposed to how it was treated based on subsequent research on the storm. Someone previously commented that operationally did not make sense, so, given that sentence is particularly confusing to outsiders, how would you explain that? Regarding the cyclone being upgraded to Tropical Storm Isis, yes, that is a correct assumption, and I don't know of any clearer way to say that, unless I should say something like, "Tropical cyclones are named when the reach winds of 40 mph (65 km/h), which is the minimum threshold for tropical storm status." That sort of information is not really appropriate for this article, as no other tropical cyclone article, to my knowledge, has to explain that. Clarified the warning. The impact in California was fairly minor, so significant preparations were not taken there. I've seen in a few newspaper reports that the National Weather Service predicted a chance of increased precipitation and thunderstorms in the San Diego area, but that's a bit too minor for the preparations to warrant inclusion. Tropical cyclone articles always list how many people died in a certain area, and in some instances how they were killed. I believe that an entire family was reported missing is somewhat notable, at least notable for one sentence in the article. I fixed the last two things, as well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
On the "in real time" issue - I would be more inclined to keep the word "operationally" but briefly define it in the text. So maybe, "The National Hurricane Center upgraded the storm 21 hours later operationally, meaning that the upgrade occurred while the storm was in progress rather than during later examination." At any rate, you have addressed my other concerns so I will switch to support. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - My technical support. Nothing wrong with the article, at least to my bad grammar filled eyes. Hink did a great job on this article. Mitch32contribs 20:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Moderate Support - It looks good. However, it could use more wikilinking, especially in the Aftermath section. For example, only one word in the first paragraph of the Aftermath section is wikilinkes; "Acre", "Mosquitoes", etc. can be wikilinked, and it would make the article almost perfect. JuliancoltonTalk 21:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.