Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1992 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1992 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

edit | discuss
1992 Atlantic hurricane season
6 articles
Timeline
Tropical Depression One
Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Bonnie
Tropical Storm Danielle
Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink, CrazyC83, Sunderland06

After an unsuccessful FAC of Hurricane Andrew last year, I decide to simply go for a GA. That action in turn left every article associated with the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season at least GA-quality. I myself also got the main article, 1992 Atlantic hurricane season, itself to GA. After slight revamps to old ones like Tropical Depression One and Hurricane Bonnie, I believe all the articles would still probably be considered a GA. Therefore, I think the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season should be considered a Good Topic. --12george1 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why in the world Tropical Storm Danielle (1992) deserves a separate article? And Hurricane Bonnie (1992) was only class 2 with no impact at all, so why a separate article. As a side-note, did you guys decide on which seasons deserve a separate timeline article? Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Danielle struck in an unusual part of the US (only two other storms have struck the Delmarva peninsula), and it killed two people. As for Bonnie, it was a long-lasting storm with an interesting meteorological history, so it would be a bit long (and receive WP:UNDUE weight) if it didn't have an article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Hurricanehink, Danielle struck an unusual part of the US, plus it clearly has enough impact to remain separate. As for Bonnie, I'm not sure. That storm was long-lasting, but there was no actual records broken or significant impact (1 fatality doesn't really cut it anymore).--12george1 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Negraal, are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but Danielle was a landfallling US storm. More times than not the fact alone is article worthy as US storms are likely to have significant information. And since when, does a storm have to affect land to get an article? I am sorry; however, I never understood the argument of "if there is less than six lines of impact, I'm merging it" or stuff like that. The Meteorological history section exists as well and will be moved to the season article in a merger, so it should count whether or not an article should stay IMO. Either way, neither of those two articles can fit inside their season articles. Not to mention, they are GA's so IMO, it is not worth like its like its existence is a huge deal. It's not like the article's existence is doing any harm to the site, the article is stable and in decent shape, does not require much maintenance (since these types of storms are simple to do), so why bother axing them? I realize you are sorta an outsider, but if you do not think Bonnie and Danielle should get article, which storm's should? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me clarify my point: a tropical storm hitting US is automatically notable? even if it had two fatalities and Overall damage from the storm was minimal.? How about a class 2 hurricane which had no effect and one indirect fatality? If the standards for articles are so low, maybe we should have an article on every earthquake on a 4-5 Richter scale. Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every tropical storm hitting the US is automatically notable, but Danielle did affect an unusual part of the country. As for Bonnie, I don't think it's notable enough, but I have different standards from others in the project. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, assuming there is enough content for such article to exist. As for your point about a TS making landfall in the US, chances are that the there is enough content IMO for a stand-alone article. Ditto Bonnie, it may have been a Cat 2, but giving it's location it was not gonna get a whole lot stronger. The storm lasted a long time and thus IMO has enough information for it to exist. I mean, if an article was a little low on the info side, but if it was a very important storm, the article would IMO be able to stay, but for the most part it is all about content. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh, disagree YE about the low info/important storm part. I think neither Danielle nor Bonnie were terribly important. I wouldn't lose sleep if either were merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Bonnie and Danielle are IMO not the most important storm's ever. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Danielle, at the very least, is a meteorological enigma, and the fact that there is information about its impacts—even if minimal by natural disaster standards—makes for a decent article. By all accounts the existence of Danielle's article is a benefit to specialists and curious readers and a detriment to nobody. After all, what can be wrong with a well-sourced, refined entry, complete with high-quality illustrations, on a scientific topic? Bonnie is similarly enigmatic, and although I can see no reason for the removal of its article, a stronger argument could be made for Danielle's inclusion. To be clear, though, the category of a tropical cyclone means relatively little in many cases, as I'm sure is true of the intensity of an earthquake, whose impacts may be more readily determined by depth, location, building standards, etc. Keep in mind also that Wikipedia largely caters to individuals with very precise reading interests. I'm sure many meteorologists and scientists couldn't be bothered to read articles or topics on television programs, for instance, but that's why there's no tangible limit to the amount of pages the site can host. Juliancolton (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. It's one thing if you have a tropical storm in the middle of nowhere, but it's another if the storm did something interesting. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The featured list needs some work.
  • In the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season article, the summary fails WP:ACCESS.
    • Few dodgy links in that article according to the tool.
    • Bad use of bold in that article in the "Season effects" table (per WP:BADEMPHASIS).
      • The bold is used to denote landfalls. However, I suppose I could remove the bolding for now and find an alternative later.--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, ref placement in that article needs work (no spaces between punctuation and refs).
    • Don't use grey text to differentiate one thing from another (per ACCESS).
  • As for Tropical Depression One (1992), a couple of dubious links.
    • Nasty mixture of date formats in the refs.
    • Things like "St Petersburg Times" should be in italics.
  • Hurricane Andrew not in too bad a state but "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" should use en-dash (per WP:DASH) and should have those overcapitalised words.
    • Refs shouldn't have spaces between them.
    • Again, messy mix of date formats.
      • I can't fix either one of them, since they are both part of a template.--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't use templates, or fix the templates so the date formats across all references are the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do use the template since saves having to go through each and every article to update the link every year, i also note that the dates in the template is consistently transposing the same date wichever article you go to where it is deployed so i dont really know what TRM is on about.Jason Rees (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Agreed. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Okay, well Ref 22 uses "February 12, 2013" as a publication date, while, say, Ref 26 uses "1992-10-30" as a publication date. Ref 21 uses "Retrieved August 10, 2011." while Ref 27 uses "Retrieved 2012-05-08." We should avoid mixing date formats like this (please refer MOS:DATEUNIFY). Do you know what I'm "on about" now? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • The format on 1992 AHS should now be consistent.Jason Rees (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good news, Bonnie and Danielle look just about passable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the summaries (those timelines), please see 1955 Atlantic hurricane season for an example of accessibility. It's all about not just relying on the colour of the bar to convey the information (the classification) of the storm, e.g. by placing (C1) after the name. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has been considered quite controversial many times in this project, but I am okay with it as it is a fairly reasonable thing to ask, it's more than just a link of articles. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/1992_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1136459282"