Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)/archive1

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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:18, 28 September 2008 [1].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle (2002)

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I don't get told often that I have written a speedy FAC. This was split from Hurricane Kyle (2002) while that article was on FAC, and I believe this also passes the FA criteria. Just a little note: this storm was the 4th longest lasting Atlantic hurricane of all time, so it's history is pretty important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Alright, this is the ultimate laziness. Creating articles and FACing in all of the 30 seconds it took to copy and paste! :P
The meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle, which was the fourth longest-lived Atlantic tropical or subtropical cyclone on record, lasted for more than a month in September and October of 2002. No "of" between the month and year per MoS.
I'd like to see more information about formation. You go from the cold front to a subtropical depression in three sentences.
The next day, the remnants of Kyle were absorbed by another extratropical cyclone to its northwest, which continued northeastward and moved near the British Isles on October 23. Change "another", as it implies that Kyle itself was an extratropical cyclone.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I got the second and third thing (in another 30 seconds ;) ), but I didn't get the first point. The article is comprehensive for its origins. The NHC didn't have too much more, as it was only mentioned for the first time in the TWO two days prior to it forming. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, but is there anything from TWOs? If not, that's fine. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nah, I checked, and there was a bit of information, but nothing substantial. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scrollboxes are hard to read through: what's the point, and what's going to happen when 1) every FAC gets dozens of them that I have to scroll through and 2) then someone adds a comment or Support or Oppose declaration to the bottom of one that I miss? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, issues resolved. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as another hurricane article; besides, I can't aid and abet you or Julian when you're just dropping me in the standings... - anyhow, all images have appropriate licenses, authors, and sources. Meets image criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mwahahahah! :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody make him stop; it's going to take over FAC and make my life miserable :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns - 1) Presence of a "see also" section. Try to incorporate this into the body of the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with the "see also" section? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since this is part of the "2002 Atlantic hurricane season", this cannot be put in a see also, as it is the basis of the topic. The same goes for "Hurricane Kyle (2002)". See also - "Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also";" Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, Juliancolton has helped me by replacing the links in the see also section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - To finish that quote you started: Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in "See also"; however, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. I wouldn't have had a problem leaving the section as it was. Those were useful links that a reader might be interesting in exploring when (s)he reaches the end of the prose. Plasticup ^T/C 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. However, I must protest. I think Julian and Hink need to work on bishops for three months to let me have a chance to catch up.... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I ain't quitting till I reach #1 on the list, so you can catch up then ;) ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A positive feedback loop! Awesome! Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first bit is confusing: The meteorological history of Hurricane Kyle, which was the fourth longest-lived Atlantic tropical or subtropical cyclone on record, lasted for more than a month in September and October 2002. - The infobox says that Kyle formed on September 20, 2002 and dissipated on October 12, 2002, that in my view is less than a month - the two parts contradict each other. D.M.N. (talk) 16:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it doesn't really contradict, to be technical. The meteorological history also includes its origins, as well as its remnants. ~~Should I reword that?~~ ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Scratch that. Juliancolton changed that to lasting 22 days'. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing just because otherwise Sandy will cut me 'ead off for opposing for being a hurricane article or having a boring nomination statement. :) anyhow, going to have to lean ~~oppose'~~due to comprehensiveness concerns. All the sources are boring 'ole stodgy weather dudes. While that's fine, a quick look through print archives showed information that I didn't see in the article, and which seems good to know. For example, the Sunday Telegraph ran a story called "'Hurricane' Kyle causes a met man's depression Few in North and Scotland escape two-day gale", which talks about how Kyle's possible destruction was trumped up in the press and its effects in Europe. There's more about what weathermen expected the storm to do, which you could contrast to what happened. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to disagree. That wasn't really Kyle in Europe. That system absorbed the remnants of Kyle, which is why I mentioned it in the article. I believe I covered the article well with what the storm was forecast to do, what it actually did, and its effects. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you be able to respond again? I don't believe your objection is actionable, and I don't want this FAC to fail. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have to disagree; there's still more information from newspapers, etc. which could be added detailing the storms effects and impact which are not covered here or the parent article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any and all impacts that Kyle itself caused are at Hurricane Kyle (2002)#Impact. The effects you refer to in that newspaper article were from the system that absorbed the remnants of Kyle, and were thus not part of the tropical cyclone. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, the effects in Europe are in the last sentence of that section. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my oppose. I still think that more attention should be paid to its worldwide effects, et al, but I'm not going to sit in the way. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.