Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Andrew/archive3

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 not promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hurricane Andrew

[edit]

Hurricane Andrew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article has failed twice and was not Today's Feature Article on August 24, 2012 (20th anniversary of landfall in Florida). However, that does not mean that this article hasn't improved since last time. During the last seven months, I worked to fix the issues brought up last time and got this article to GA back in February. Let me introduce to you, Hurricane Andrew. Back in 1992, Andrew struck South Florida and wracking up $26.5 billion in damage, it was the costliest hurricane in U.S. history, until Katrina, Ike, and Sandy. The article lacks little, if any significant details about impact and aftermath from this devastating storm. There is also much info regarding Meteorological history, though luckily it should be simple enough for the "average Joe" to read. Feel free to comment below if you disagree with my opinion that this article should be considered among Wikipedia's best work. Last but not least, this is a WikiCup nomination. Enjoy!--12george1 (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage You have some reference format inconsistencies to start with. None of these should be difficult fixes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • See #8 (semicolons between authors) vs. #11 (commas between authors).
  • Also, many of your authors are first last but a few are last, first (#21 and #22, at least).
  • You identify the GIF file format for reference #18, but not for #25 and #26 (and there may be others).
  • Reference #41 has a "p.", but no page number.

But I think you're also short on comprehensiveness. There's a lot of scholarly material out there on this major historic storm that's not touched on at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a great deal of attention paid to PTSD caused by this storm's damage, especially in children and adolescents. There are probably a dozen journal articles on the subject, which isn't even mentioned here.
  • The article doesn't touch on meta-analysis of the cleanup efforts. Perhaps incorporate material from: Peacock WG, Gladwin H, Morrow BH, eds. (1997). Hurricane Andrew: Ethnicity, Gender and the Sociology of Disasters. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415168113.
  • Andrew's damage pattern differed from most other hurricanes, with substantial damage caused by the east side of the eyewall. The eyewall/damage pattern relationship was the subject of some evaluation. See Wakimoto RM, Black PG (1994). "Damage survey of Hurricane Andrew and its relationship to the eyewall". Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 75 (2): 189–202. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1994)075<0189:DSOHAA>2.0.CO;2.
  • Possibly mention the ecological damage Andrew inflicted, and its subsequent recovery, as well? For example, (but there are others here, too): Baldwin A, Egnotovich M, Ford M, Platt W (2001). "Regeneration in fringe mangrove forests damaged by Hurricane Andrew". Plant Ecology. 157 (2): 151–164. doi:10.1023/A:1013941304875.
  • Comment - According to User:Citation bot, the field "|publisher=" is repeated in some references. FallingGravity (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Minor quibble - nine (9) instances in References sect of error messages, for example, "More than one of |work= and |newspaper= specified". These should probably be easy fixes that will make things easier in the future for WP:V confirmation. — Cirt (talk) 05:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

  1. Thirteen (13) uses of word "also", three (3) uses of "however", seven (7) uses of "though" - might be worth doing a check to see if these can be removed or at least minimized.
  2. Aftermath - one-sentence-long-paragraph ends the entirety of the article, at end of this sect. Could this be either merged up somewheres, or perhaps expanded upon?
  3. See also - the Wikimedia Commons sisterlink should be moved to an External links sect, perhaps with a few useful external links like government info or science websites.
  4. See also - might be helpful to have a few more useful links here to other related articles here, or certainly at the very least, a couple more portals. :)
  5. Sorry not sure what the MOS is for this, but the term "United States" in full is used twice in subsection headers, might this be better as just "U.S."?
  6. Aftermath - the "see also" link at the top of this sect only really refers to that last bottom sentence, and it's already included in the See also sect, suggest just trimming it from here and leaving in See also sect, instead.
  7. Impact sect = the table, it should be noted according to what year of dollars this is in. (due to inflation of currency).
  8. Aftermath sect - phrase "began pouring in", 2nd paragraph, would be less POV to say, "began to arrive", or something like that.

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia of this important and educational quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everything should be fixed. As for the first issues, the word "also" is actually used only three times, because you accidentally counted the "Also a good article header", "See also" (both on the table of contents and section header), and it a reference title. "However" has been cut to only 2 uses, and there is only 4 uses of "though"--12george1 (talk) 14:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, looks a bit better, thanks for the responsiveness to my comments, above. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In my view the lead wasn't written in a way that would make clear to the casual reader the aspects that made this storm particularly notable. I have added an introductory paragraph at the top in hopes of addressing that need. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I'm afraid that after six weeks this nom hasn't generated the level of commentary or support one might've expected, so I'll be archiving it shortly. It may benefit from a peer review during the minimum two-week break that FAC requires between archiving and renominating another article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2013 (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/Hurricane_Andrew/archive3&oldid=960407613"