Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1950 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. 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.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:55, 8 February 2011 [1].

1950 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

1950 Atlantic hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a lot of time and effort, including a peer review, I feel it is up to FA standards, similar to other featured hurricane articles (like 1933, 1998). This season was the first in which received names. You know how when you turn on the news and hear of Hurricane Carlos being a killer cane in Cuba? Well before this year, storms didn't have any standardized identification. It had a high number of very strong hurricanes, and two major hurricanes hit Florida (anyone Floridians on remember 2004 or 2005?) I believe it is well-written (and I'm completely open for you to rip apart its writing), that it's comprehensive (the most significant storms have sub-articles, and I thoroughly researched the storm's impact and meteorological histories), stable (there shouldn't be any changes for a few years), and whatnot. I present, the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season. I hope you like it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally forgot, this will be a Wikicup nomination. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: A few minor issues:-

  • Ref 1 is a footnote that requires citation to a source
  • Ref 5: USA Today requires italics
  • Ref 7: Although connected to the Atlantic Tropical Weather Center by the web address, the site looks very amateurish - no presentation, no introduction, no attribution of the text. Other ATWC pages have proper logo etc. Rather odd, thought I'd raise it.
  • Ref 14: Miami Daily News requires italics
  • Ref 19: A specific fact should not be cited to an entire 400-page book. Please provide page reference
  • Formats of retrieval dates should be consistent (e.g. see ref 6)
  • Spotchecks: these generally check out. One query:-
    • "The season was above average; a typical year experiences ten tropical storms, six hurricanes, and between two and three major hurricanes."[8] Where does ref 8 support this particular statement?

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Ref 1 - how do I cite a footnote? It's already in a ref, so how do I ref it? (I'll try figuring it out later on, but seeing as you just replied, I was wondering if you knew off-hand). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Ref 1 to a named note, and use a parenthetical citation (not the superscripted inline cite) within the note's content. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that for you. I left formatting the new reference 1 as homework for you. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I formatted the ref. As for Brianboulton, I believe I addressed all of your concerns. As for the Atlantic Tropical Weather Center, the reason being is that that ref was from 2004 or earlier (as no storms after/including 2004 are in there), and technology didn't allow for good-looking sites. I changed the Ref 19 to something online (since it was fairly inconsequential), and as for ref 8, it is in the image on the page, but seeing as we shouldn't cite images, I cited the page that linked to it. Thanks a lot for the source review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more or less OK with your responses to the above. But it seems you have inadvertently de-italicised a large number of your print sources (15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24 etc) (here is where you did it). Cite news automatically italicises the publisher field. Brianboulton (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ack, I fixed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs; 3 dead external links- this dies and redirects, and these two 404. --PresN 22:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I got the USAToday one per the wayback machine. The others were working when I wrote the article, and I'm not sure what happened. However, seeing as they're Cite news, I just removed the URL. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on 1c: there are some book sources that don't appear to be used: eg [2] and [3]. The first source I've linked seems to give a fairly detailed account of the 1950 season in Florida: see page 185 and following. Instead, the article near exclusively uses two kinds of sources. The first are contemporaneous news reports, which can't give a full retrospective of the events, to the extent that some consider them primary sources. The second is from the NOAA, which seems to consist of another relatively contemporaneous account (1951) and primary source technical data. I'm not going to oppose at this stage because I'm not familiar with the topic area and there might be a very good topic-specific reason why the kinds of sources I've identified aren't used in these kinds of articles. But it does strike me to be a rather limited review of the sources that are out there.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just another thing I noticed: the references to each Hurricane for the second and subsequent occasions in their sections are inconsistent. Eg sometimes it is "Hurricane Charlie" and other times just "Charlie". I think it needs some consistent treatment throughout unless there's a good reason to depart from that treatment in a particular case.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for your latter comment, it's to prevent redundancy. Hurricanes are known by their name, so there's no need to say "Hurricane Charlie" every last time. As for your book comment, I'm not sure there are any books that could help. This article is along the lines of a list, that is it's primarily made of the subset of other topics (the storms). The only thing books would help with would be impact information, which is in the 1951 report, or in more modern online reports. I'm familiar with both books you mentioned, and neither would be able to provide much more than what's in the article. If anything, it would only add more impact, which at this point isn't needed since all storms that caused a lot of impact already has a sub-article (so, per WP:UNDUE, shouldn't be too long here). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article shouldn't say "Hurricane Charlie" except in initial mentions. The problem is that it says it far too often when "Charlie" would suffice (example). It's an issue affecting a number of sections. 1c, which is my main concern so far, requires all reliable and relevant literature to be consulted. Can we be sure that the more recent books won't add anything that the article should mention? Of course if a source is reviewed and the writer considers it doesn't contain anything worthwhile, that is one thing. But not reviewing or considering a source at all, where the source appears reliable, is another. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "Hurricane How" vs. "How", I didn't want people to be confused, since seeing "How hit Mexico" might be confusing (since How isn't a noun). However (pun not intended), I should give people more credit, since there is "Dog", "King", and "Able" elsewhere in the article. As for the books, I am familiar with them (having worked with them sporadically for the past few years), and I honestly don't think they would add anything worthwhile. As I said before, the only thing they would add is more impact, but all of the main impacting storms have articles, so their section should only be a summary. I'll check on Google Scholar for anything, but as for books, I don't think they would help. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs a copyedit as well. Prose is not my strong point. But in the early part of the article, I have the following issues:
  • I think "Florida panhandle" should be wikilinked - it's not a well-known term outside the US.
  • "there were a total of 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage". Seems an ugly expression, grammatically dodgy, and doesn't link the damage to the hurricanes. How about: "The season's hurricanes caused 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage".
  • "defined as a Category 3". "classified as" seems more accurate.
  • Ah, then the issue is that the sentence doesn't make it clear the phrase is trying to classify the eight relevant hurricanes as Cat 3, or define the term "major hurricane". I read the sentence as trying to do the former (despite the use of the word "defining", so it could perhaps benefit from some rephrasing but I can't think how at the moment. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the first time this season". I think this is meant to be "This season was the first time that…"
  • "No seasons since then have broken the record". There's a bit of redundant wording here (eg "since then" is unnecessary as no pre-1950 season could break the record). How about "The record still stands" or something similar?
  • True, I changed it to "Six tropical storms or hurricanes formed in October, which at the time was greater than in any other year, and which no other season has broken; however, the 2005 season later tied it." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "broken" now stands out without anything being broken. I think if the word "broken" is used, the word "record" needs to appear earlier in the sentence. How about: "Six tropical storms or hurricanes formed in October, a record for that month equalled only in 2005." That, or something similar, would be a much simpler sentence.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were a total of eight major hurricanes". I think this should be "was" instead of "were", but why not drop "a total of"?
  • "as of 2010". Seems an unnecessary addition to "still stands".
  • "there was a cyclone named Mike in October". I know this is silly but how about moving "in October" earlier in the sentence to avoid the suggestion that the cyclone was named "Mike in October".
  • "the highest amount". Number, not amount (eek).
  • "since the practice began". What practice? I don't think the earlier part of the sentence makes it clear. "their flights" might suffice.
  • "The season was above average". In what respect was the season above average? Don't we mean something else, like "the number of storms in the season".
Thanks a lot for the review. It really helped tighten up the prose, thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, what happens now? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by ★ Auree (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I went through the article and though I am no expert at reviewing FAs, I feel this is a substantial and well-written article. Seeing that the previous comments have been addressed, I don't feel there are any (major) issues left here. ★ Auree (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might add some more to this, but it looks pretty good for the rest. ★ Auree (talk) 02:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm is believed to have reached its peak intensity of 90 mph (150 km/h)." - Nit-picky, but the "its" doesn't suit the sentence imo — since the peak intensity is only an assumption, I'd replace it with "a". ★ Auree (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ehh, I disagree. "its" is more specific, since it was the only peak intensity. "a" might imply one of many. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just feel that by using "its" there's something lacking here, i.e. a time stamp. For example: "The storm is believed to have reached its peak intensity of 90 mph (150 km/h) at 1200 UTC," but if you feel otherwise, it's all good. ★ Auree (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by 12george1 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comments:
      • In there is a capitalization error: "Florida panhandle" should be "Florida Panhandle".
      • "Hurricane Charlie developed on August 21 to the southwest of the Cape Verde islands, although operationally it was not considered a tropical cyclone until a week later." - The source says that Charlie had formed on August 27, which would be six, not seven, days after it actually formed. Put either one of the two: "...it was not considered a tropical cyclone until almost a week later." or "...it was not considered a tropical cyclone until six days later."
      • On the Baker section, there is a comma before and after ref #19 ("Rainfall peaked at 15.49 in (393 mm) in Caryville, Florida,[19], causing heavy crop damage across the region"); erase the comma after the reference note
      • The season summary map has not alt text; also, I just figured out that the alt parameter is available for the image in the "image parameter" on individual tropical cyclone infoboxes. Please add some alt text.
      • Inconsistency with abbreviations
      • No inflation templates for U.S. currency
      • What happened to the section on "Cyclone Mike"?
      • Is there a source with a list of names for 1950, because reference #7 only covers from Able to Mike, perhaps add something listing the "Joint Army/Navy Phonetic Alphabet".
      • Like I have told people in the GAR's, the dates on the references are inconsistent; the first and last name is also in the wrong order for all but ref #5
        • Got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not finished; the first and last name is still in the wrong order. For example, ref #4 says the author as Chris Landsea, when it should actually say Landsea, Chris. I found another error in the references: refs #13 and 19 have the same title (both read: "Rainfall Summary for Hurricane Able (1950)"), I investigated it further and #19 should say "Rainfall Summary for Hurricane Baker (1950)"
            • I got the Baker one, but as far as I know you don't have to do the author that way. Nothing I've read requires that, and I prefer how it currently is (aside from ref #5, which I adjusted for consistency). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Finish those tasks and I will support.--12george1 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, I will now support--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - My issues were resolved--12george1 (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I see nothing wrong with the article now... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would add a timeline to the top of the summary section. Most of our other season articles have one, why not this one? Also, I've found a couple Atlantic tropical cyclones in the 1940s which have sported names from the phonetic alphabet. I'm wondering if we should be so cavalier about saying "this is the first season with named storms" (which NHC agrees with interestingly enough and is supported by HURDAT which was constructed in 1968) when it seems like phonetic naming started sometime in the 1940's by the military, with names not becoming known by the public routinely until 1953. At least one of these names made the newspaper, George of 1947 (page 36). Another phonetically-named Atlantic tropical cyclone appeared in the recent thesis by Andrew Hagen, Able of 1948 (page 49). The thing is, I don't know exactly how the wording would need to be changed in this article because of these inconvenient facts Thegreatdr (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the timeline. As for the other naming pre-1950, I think the current wording is fine. "the first year in which tropical cyclones were given official names in the Atlantic basin" - that synchronizes with what NHC and HURDAT says. I knew about George in 1947, and I heard of one named Easy, but they don't seem to be official. As for the public, it doesn't seem the names were used in 1950, but they certainly were in 1951 (example). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I found the article somewhat long-winded and awkwardly worded. It needs a very thorough copy-edit. To take examples from the second paragraph of the lead:

Throughout the season, there was a total of 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage (1950 USD, $338 million 2011 USD). --> The season resulted in 88 fatalities and $37 million in damage (1950 USD, $338 million 2011 USD)
The strongest hurricane of the season was named Dog, and reached the equivalent of a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale. --> Hurricane Dog, a Category 5 storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale, was the strongest one of the season. BTW, why isn't Dog linked if Able, Easy, and King are?
Two major hurricanes affected Florida. The first, Hurricane Easy, meandered its way ashore over the western portion of the state, producing the largest 24-hour rainfall total on record in the United States. The other was Hurricane King, which struck downtown Miami and caused heavy damage totaling $27.75 million (1950 USD, $253 million 2011 USD).
The first sentence is short and feels like a start of a completely separate topic to the previous part of the paragraph. Is that much detail necessary in the lead? You mention that Dog was the strongest but don't mention that it barely affected land. Instead, I suggest chopping that block down to: "Two major hurricanes affected Florida: Easy produced the largest 24-hour rainfall total on record in the United States, while King struck downtown Miami, causing heavy damaged totalling $27.75 (1950 USD, $253 million 2011 USD). (BTW, totaling or totalling? This might be American/Canadian differences, "totaling" looks weird to me).

This is merely symptomatic of the rest of the article. Like "The large number of strong storms yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy, a record that stood for 55 years." is just weird, "Due to the large number of strong storms, the season set a record for the highest accumulated cyclone energy, that stood until 2005 [link to 2005 season]". Or "The beginning of season was very inactive until the middle of August, when a tropical wave spawned a tropical storm east of the Lesser Antilles on August 12." really should be "The first storm of season formed relatively late, when a tropical wave spawned a tropical storm east of the Lesser Antilles on August 12". You can't say the beginning of the season was very inactive--that implies very sporadic storms, not an outright absence. And I could go on and on. The article really needs a good copyedit. Maxim(talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I have to disagree with some of your assessment. I feel it's wrong to say "The season resulted in..." since that applies the season was the one actually causing the damage and deaths. It's just a summary of the storms. As for Dog, it is linked in the sentence you mentioned. The sentence in the article puts more emphasis on the strongest storm of the season, whereas your version makes it look like an afterthought. However, I did like your suggestion for the major hurricanes (and yes, it's "totaling" down here, but seeing the difference, I changed the wording), with the exception of "while", as that implies Easy was producing the rainfall while King was striking Miami. As for the "accumulated cyclone energy" sentence, I don't see any major problem with what was in the article (which was fewer words than your suggestion). I did, however, link to 2005 AHS. And I don't think that saying "very inactive" implies very sporadic storms, rather it should suggest the lack of activity (hence inactivity).
I really hope you would continue your review for later in the article. The first two sections are always the hardest in a season article, as it tries to cram a summary about the entire article. Once it gets to the individual storm summaries, I'd like to believe things are much more normal. I do appreciate your review, however I do disagree with some of your assessment. I'd like to think it isn't quite as bad as you're suggesting! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was godawful, it's merely awkward or confusing in places. I really suggest getting an independent copyeditor to look at it, but since you asked, I picked a hurricane randomly, Charlie:
"although operationally it was not considered a tropical cyclone until almost a week later. " They couldn't get a wind-speed measurement on it? Or the Bureau didn't formally observe until then? I'm confused.
I'm not going to assume about it, just that they didn't know for sure it was a tropical cyclone until that date. It was 61 years ago, after all, before satellite imagery. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"For four days, the storm tracked generally westward as a weak tropical storm, although on August 25 it turned to the northwest as it began a strengthening trend. On August 28, Charlie intensified into a hurricane." You have here an awkward, short sentence. Starting from "although on August 25... really is an idea that tends towards the second sentence. Try: "For four days, the storm tracked generally westward as a weak tropical storm. On August 25, it turned to the northwest and intensified, becoming a hurricane on August 28." It's tighter prose, too.
OK, it doesn't matter much either way to me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The next day, after turning northward, it reached peak winds of 115 mph (185 km/h) about 450 mi (740 km) east-southeast of Bermuda; the peak winds were measured by Hurricane Hunters." There's this disjointedness, with stating that the peak winds were measured by the Hunters. Is it really necessary here? What else would have measured winds in 1950s? Additionally, it might be useful to explain what Hurricane Hunters are in the Summary.
I changed the sentence. There are numerous ways the winds could have been estimated, such as from ship reports, land stations, even just flat out estimated. And btw the Hurricane Hunters are mentioned in the summary. I think it's clear enough that they fly into hurricanes to gather data. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The hurricane began to weaken on August 30, and simultaneously a building ridge to its north caused Charlie to execute a small loop and resume a westward track. (...)" Again, there's this awkwardness to the writing which made me do a double-take. I suggest: "On August 30, a building ridge to its north caused Charlie to execute a small loop and resume a westward track. The same day, it began to weaken, and by September 1, the winds decreased ..."
"by September 5 Charlie had transitioned into an extratropical cyclone without having affected land." Where did Charlie start to weaken and when did it transition? By the map, it looks like well to the northeast from Bermuda, and it is unclear from the article, and I had look at a larger version of the map to find Bermuda.
The sources available don't say when it started to transition, so I just said when it was fully extratropical. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my oppose, which I will revisit when a thorough copyedit of the entire article is done. It is not efficient use of reviewer time to go through a section like that, there are 12 other storms, without the Summary nor Lead. Maxim(talk) 02:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll ask for someone to do a thorough copyedit of the entire article, although I'd like to think the prose is better than you're nitpickingly making it out to be :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is more important to wikipedia, the efficient use of reviewer time or the improvement of an article to FA status? Nitpicking seems to be the difference between GAN and FAC, so it is useful, even if it seems to make an article look unworthy. FAC can be a grueling process to all involved, which if it improves the article, is worth the effort, in my opinion. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I know it's worth it in the long run. It doesn't mean I can't complain about it! Maxim, btw, I contacted User:Titoxd for a copyedit. He's been around for almost six years, and I really trust him when it comes to copyediting. Plus, he's familiar with hurricanes, so he knows about the topic, but more importantly he's a real stickler about properly explaining jargon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a full copyedit of the article's prose, so I request you to revisit your opposition. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose-wise it is much better now, I can strike that specific oppose. However, I'm not happy yet with the article, but on different grounds this time, so I'm declaring separately below. Maxim(talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I'm not happy about the storm "Mike". It's not sourced reliably as far as I can see. I don't see what makes http://www.atwc.org/ reliable. The other source about Mike, http://www.australiasevereweather.com, while in Ealdgyth's list of reliable sources, is suspicious to me. The report listed mentions Wikipedia -- how do we know that the report came before what was written in Wikipedia? The revision from June 30, 2007 sources Mike to ATWC. The Australia report was from July 2007. A Google search doesn't look promising on confirming this independently of ATWC. Maxim(talk) 03:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gary Padgett, who wrote the source that mentions Mike, is also used in several NOAA documents and papers. He's a hurricane research expert. He only uses Wikipedia for the active storms, not for the historical stuff. Specifically, let me point out how he mentions that he got the info from several sources, but not Wikipedia. We're not mentioned until the first storm section (Chantal). As for the ATCW, it's mentioned in an NOAA publication. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid Maxim is right. When I originally put info regarding Mike into the article, I didn't dream of this article becoming featured anytime soon. Until we can get the original reference (likely from the AWS document from the 1950 AHS), the info likely needs to be removed for FA status. It can always be re-added later. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, GP still mentions it, and he is certainly a reliable source, so I removed ATCW. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Thegreatdr here. At the very least, it would be preferable that a second, independent source were to be used to confirm. I find this claim to be somewhat of a red flag, regardless of who the author of the source is. If there was a mess-up, wouldn't it be acknowledged much more..? Maxim(talk) 02:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, storm names weren't widely used in 1950, particularly by the public, so if Mike were de-classified, few people would know about it. One person who would know about would be a hurricane expert such as Gary Padgett. As for the 2nd independent source, there was one until you told me to remove ATCW. I really think it's fine. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. It's not as much a matter of screwy naming, but a matter of existence of a storm or not. For TS 12, they seem to acknowledge that it had in fact existed; with Mike, they don't seem to mention it at all. Unless you can get more definitive confirmation for Mike, it really should be removed. Maxim(talk) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there is perfectly valid confirmation from Gary Padgett, it shouldn't be removed. I don't see why you're making this so difficult. The reason the name isn't so widely used is because none of the names were widely used in 1950 (or earlier). It was only after the season ended did the names go public, and by that point the agency opted to remove Mike from the list, for whatever reason. For all we know, Mike was a a blizzard that for whatever reason was name. However, the current wording reflects that uncertainty. It's just a little addition to make the article as complete as it should be. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wonder what Thegreatdr has to say on this. As of right now, he's said to remove it. Do you mean that names were arbitrarily given at the end? Then there'd be something suspicious with TS 12 -- why wouldn't it have counted? I'm confused. The inconsistencies of TS 12 and Mike are puzzling to me. The sources for TS 12 check out, but I want more confirmation for Mike. Where does Padgett get his info? I'm not trying to be difficult here; however, if you're trying to make the article better, I feel you are being very impatient about it. Would there be any reason for that? Especially of the type you ought to the declare for the benefit of reviewers and delegates? Maybe? Maxim(talk) 01:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm really sorry, I shouldn't have been so rough (nor a dick). I was being stubborn, trying to include something which I can honestly find zilch info for. I don't think the article would be hurting comprehensive wise if the Mike bit was removed. After all, it wasn't a tropical cyclone, and that's what the season is about. And yea, I forgot to mention it was a Wikicup nom. I nominated this article before I joined the cup. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Nice way to break AGF there. Vague assumptions of Hurricanehink's intentions for submitting the article here are irrelevant to the review, and do nothing to further the improvement of the article. In any case, I removed the relevant text relating to Mike, but this needs to be revisited once somebody either a) goes to the NOAA Library and checks the 1950 USAF reconnaissance reports, or b) we ask Padgett on an email to note where he got his information from. In either case, such detail is rather inconsequential. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, better now. Maxim(talk) 02:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, following the copyedit. Regarding Mike: The article currently says, "In addition to the thirteen storms, there was a cyclone in October named Mike, although for unknown reasons it is not included in the Atlantic hurricane database." Gary Padgett states, "Air Force reports refer to a system in late October named Tropical Storm Mike. However, this system does not appear in the current HURDAT database, and the reason for its omission is not clearly known." 1950 Atlantic hurricane season did not mention that Mike was reported to exist by the Air Force, which adds a degree of certainty to the current text. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I guess there's no way to stop the left margin of the main text juddering up against the first table, is there? No big deal, though. I'm using FF on a Mac. Tony (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A few items in the lead... I hope I haven't missed previous mention of any of these by others.

  • I know what is meant by this: "It was an active season with 13 tropical storms, with all but two developing into 11 hurricanes." However, technically "all but two developing into 11 hurricanes" doesn't make sense to me. You've already specified 13 and 2, so leave out the 11: "It was an active season with 13 tropical storms, all but two developing into hurricanes".
  • In the same sentence, and the one following it: numbering should be consistent per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Numbers_as_figures_or_words (second bullet). In these two sentences we have 13 and 11 and two and eight, all referring to the same subject. Personally I would suggest "thirteen", "eleven", "two", and "eight", but either way is fine as long as they are consistent.
  • I know this sentence was mentioned above, but I'll put my comment here with my others... Looking at the sentence, "The large quantity of strong storms during the year yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of the twentieth century, and 1950 held the seasonal ACE record until broken by the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season." As with my first point, I know what is being said, but do not the first part (before the comma) and the "1950 held the seasonal ACE record" part say essentially the same thing? How about a simplified version like: "The large quantity of strong storms during the year yielded the highest seasonal accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) of the twentieth century, a record that was not broken until 2005."
  • I added another "clear" after "Hurricane Able" because of image bumping on a high-resolution display.

Clearly a lot of work went into this – a very interesting article. Omnedon (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Re the ACE sentence: The reason I split it is because that the way you put the sentence it makes it seem that the twentieth-century ACE record was broken in 2005. Since 2005 is not in the twentieth century, it sounded weird to me. Thus the current wording, even though it is slightly redundant. I fixed the other concern. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1950_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=1091635697"