Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Nora (1997)

Hurricane Nora (1997)

This minor self-nomination is on behalf of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones and all the people who worked on it. This is a Good Article, has been assessed, and covers all information about this hurricane. It meets all of the criteria and deserves to be a featured article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support. One thing that should be fixed is the long storm history. Some parts are a little too long, like the reference to Linda. Also, the writing isn't particularly great. For example, paragraphs shouldn't start with However. "Urged on by a trough to its northwest" also isn't well-written. The impact section should be broken up by area, not by storm effects. Every other storm article has an intro to the impact section, followed by impact by area. All in all, though, good article. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the blurb about Linda and changed the sentence you mentioned from "At landfall, Nora was accelerating, urged on by a trough to its northwest, causing it to cross the peninsula at speeds of up to 30 mph (50 km/h)" to "At landfall, a trough (meteorology)|trough]] was accelerating Nora northwards, causing it to reach a forward speed of up to 30 mph (50 km/h).". Is that better? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes. The impact section should still be separated by area, and the storm history should be shortened a lot, preferably from 7 paragraphs to about 4 paragraphs. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The impact section is now seperated by area. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I still think the storm history should be shortened a few paragraphs. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Storm history section has 457 words in it (excluding captions). Compare this to the FA Hurricane Gloria, which has 479 words in its storm history section (again excluding captions). Nora does have more paragraphs (because they are shorter) but its length by word count is shorter than another hurricane FA's. Should I remove some of the exact measurements? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's probably it. Could some of the paragraphs be combined? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In storm history, there is now one paragraph on formation, two on the life at sea, and one on landfall and post landfall. I took out one picture to ensure that there wasn't too much crowding of text. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Why not? Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 19:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the most detailed article of the 1997 Pacific hurricane season, and is comprehensive, as it draws from all available, reliable sources. Meets the featured article criteria completely. But then, I'm probably slightly biased in favor of the article, as I rewrote most of it... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Titoxd; also biased towards it as original author, heh. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:14 UTC (2006-06-01)
Support-- Yeh, its a little short but I cant think of any ways to expand it. --Osbus 01:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; alot of missing   between numbers and abbreviated units. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all the ones I could see, question though - should nbsps be used in "30 billion dollars"?--Nilfanion (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say definitely between "30" and "billion". I'm not so sure about between "billion" and "dollars". —C uivi é nen^T|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:09 UTC

See WP:DATE#Units_of_measurement. It implies that one should only put   before abbreviations of units, but it's not a big deal. Just don't do 30 billion dollars, because of how long that is. I wouldn't argue with $30 billion though. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks - the MOS is a little ambiguous in that case. I've got all the ones I can see now (may have missed one or two).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good Article, Good Author, Good review Rrpbgeek 18:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. WikiProject Tropical Cyclones is doing good work. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written, concise, well referenced, encyclopedic. —C uivi é nen^T|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:09 UTC
Support. Good article. This project is churning out so many FAs! Great going.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job guys --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More comments—sorry, I just noticed a things that might be worth fixing. "While Nora stayed off the Pacific coast of Mexico"—it didn't; Baja California is part of Mexico. Also, could a few sentences be added to the lead? I realize this is a short article, but a four sentence lead seems short to me. Anything about its speed of travel, the rise and fall in its sustained winds as it moved up the coast, a little about the preparations in the US and Mexico, and maybe some more specifics on the damage in each country ("waves reached 20 feet along the Baja California coast", "some places receiving as much as 12 inches of rain", that type of thing). --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 13:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nora was still off the Pacific coast of Mexico when the SMN issued the warnings in the paragraph, and then it hit Baja California, and that's what the sentence is trying to say. I'm trying to think of a way to make that clearer, and I come up empty. :( I'll try to expand the lead more, though. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]