Support with some comments. Since both the criticism and history sections are rather short, perhaps they should be merged? Also, since a reputable source gave reasons why it does not exist, perhaps Category 6 should be a sub-section of categories. "There is no such category on this scale, and any mention of a Category 6 tropical cyclone is fictitious or incorrect." - This sentence feels a bit out of place, also. One last question I've been thinking of; the storm description says that Category 1 hurricanes usually cause no real damage, but then it lists a few notable hurricanes of the category. Perhaps a sentence saying that Category 1 hurricanes can cause flooding or tornado damage? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that because the lack of a Category 6 can be construed as criticism, it perhaps could be merged with that section. I'll correct the Cat1 description. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, no comparison to other existing or historical scales, and all the sections are fairly short. History section is particularly stubby and has little about the report the scale was first published in, for instance. --Coredesat 21:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Still, some comparative info with a see also link would not hurt. --Coredesat 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The reason the scales article was created was to get out all the non-hurricane information out of the SSHS article, and to leave all comparisons to the table on the scales article to avoid duplication of information. So, adding non-SSHS information is something that I'm rather hesitant to do. What do you think should be added, in particular? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, did this scale influence the development of other scales? If so, that should be mentioned. A little more history in general would also not hurt; how did the public react to the introduction of the scale? Are there any sources that detail this? Have any changes been made over the years? --Coredesat 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in here, but as I do agree, there are also things that are needed. I agree with Coredesat in that it needs more history of the scale. Aside from that, I think it is a very good article. :) Juliancolton (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. The history section seems to suggest that it developed in a near-vacuum and when created was adopted by everyone instantly. How did the original form of the hurricane disaster potential scale differ from the latest version of the SSHS? When did the NHC, WMO, other nations and the public begin using the scale? Detailed comparison to other scales is not needed but there should be some info there. Beaufort scale says "Today, hurricanes are sometimes described as Beaufort scale 12 through 16, very roughly related to the standard Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale where Category 1 is equivalent to Beaufort 12." That is unsourced and weaselly, but if true should be included in SSHS. The Australians developed their own scale based on gusts as opposed to sustained winds. The Australian Bureau of Meteorology does use it for some purposes (its included in best track). Did they examine and reject SSHS first and if so why? What, if any, attempts have there been to introduce SSHS (or its 10-min version) at the global scale or in other regions? There are variants to the scale, not just the disputable value of the "category 6". For instance, what about Category 0? In addition, its not really clear which is the defining property in the categories subsection; and the 1-min to 10-min conversion should be mentioned. The category 6 section needs renaming or moved to a subsection of criticism; in its current form the TOC is unbalanced.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Should tropical storm category be included? Juliancolton (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - Well written article. I certainly like the 3rd reason. Hope it passes.Mitch32contribs 21:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That is kinda the reason it was put on FAC to start with...I think. Juliancolton (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please archive the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I completely agree with Nilfanion and Coredesat. An FA should be expected to give a history of its topic with some detail.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments -- I archived the peer review, per SandyGeorgia (talk·contribs)'s request. The Criticism section has some sentences which are a bit too long, overuse of commas. These sentences could be split up into shorter sentences instead. Are there no lists for Categories 1, 2 and 3 like there are for 4 and 5 ? I agree that the History section could be expanded a bit more. Cirt (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC).
Comment If nothing else, it should be the "Saffir–Simpson scale", not the "Saffir-Simpson scale". I note that WP:DASH now says that en-dashes should be used in the title of the page where appropriate. Bluap (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Why do you suggest this is an endash (which indicates range) rather than a hyphenated word? I don't see that; suggest asking Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it's one thing, and thus does not need the endash. --Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
If a scientific theory is named after two separate people, then it is normal to use an en-dash. The example given in WP:DASH is "Michelson–Morley experiment". Without an en-dash, it implies that the scale is named after a single person with a hyphenated name. Bluap (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Title needs hyphen, not en dash. It's not a relationship between disjunct things, and is neither a range nor a movement from one to the other. Tony(talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Tony - does that mean, in your opinion, the MOS (linked by me above) needs updating? Certainly the example Bluap gives, "Michelson–Morley experiment", seems to correspond well with this example. An experiment named after Messrs Michelson & Morley, versus a scale named after Messrs Saffir & Simpson. I have no strong opinion either way, but the MOS, as it stands, seems to contradict what you've said here. Course, that could be both me and Bluap misreading MOS, but if so that would imply tighter wording over there would be useful. This FAC isn't really the place to discuss, anyway. Carre (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps best addressed after the holidays at the MOS talk page; I suspect a lot of editors will be offline over the next few days, so I'm not going to be closing any close calls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd - I read the history section, and I have to agree that it's a little thin, and gives the impression (and Nilf says above) that it was developed in a vacuum. I'm hesitant to promote it just yet. Could you please expand this section a bit? Raul654 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favor of making allowances over the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs a copy-edit by someone unfamiliar with the text. Please don't just correct these samples. Otherwise, it has merit.
You might consider not cluttering the opening sentence with "words as words" quotes, since both are highlighted by being linked. Ah, but I see it works with the last sentence of the lead—no one will complain if you remove all four pairs, but it's up to you. Why aren't the last two linked as well?
Pullease, not "in order to"—just "to".
"are intended primarily for use in measuring the"—this should be two words "to measure".
Causality a logical problem: "The classifications are intended primarily for use in measuring the potential damage and flooding a hurricane will cause upon landfall, although they have been criticized as being too simple." "Although" means there's a contradiction: there isn't.
Box: MOS breach—there must be a space after the ≥ and the >.
"defines sustained winds by average winds over a period of one minute"—verbose and wrong preposition. "defines sustained winds as average winds over a minute". Tony(talk) 23:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Titoxd still hasn't edited since December 13; closing the review. The FAC can be reinitiated if Tito returns to editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.