Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Mitch/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [1].

Hurricane Mitch

Notified: Hurricanehink, Titoxd, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest, and as such most heavily decayed and neglected FAs of the Tropical Cyclone project. This one has been a contendor under discussion by the project for years now – it's time to finally cut the knot. The article simply does not reflect the mounts of literature and data available, while much of the information it does contain is unverifiable, as mentioned by SandyGeorgia back in 2015. More specific subsections that need attention:

Lead - A bit sparse for the deadliest modern hurricane ever. Should more adequately reflect the severity and destruction of the storm.
Preparations - This section does not properly cover the scope of this storm; a Category 5 stalling and approaching Central America is bound to create more upheaval and media attention than is currently reflected. Moreover, a bit of discussion and context would be helpful: If there were preparations and evacuations, why the high number of deaths, still? Did local authorities fail to anticipate the unprecedented severity of this storm or did residents not heed the warnings? I am sure there have been studies on this.
Impact - The only country that has been covered reasonably well is Honduras, and that one has a subarticle. There are no Spanish language sources for a predominantly Latin American phenomenon, nor are there links to journal articles or important books on the storm.
Aftermath - Same as above. No mention of the homeless, no real context given to the scope of the devastation, no sense of global response sketched, and the discussion of the recovery phase is lacking. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a plethora of journal articles mentioning its effects on numerous areas, from ecology to psychology, while a scan of Google Books gives numerous high-quality, important accounts of the storm, its impact, and its implications.

Overall, then, my biggest issues are with 1 b. comprehensive and 1 c. well-researched, due to the omission of crucial book, journal and Spanish-language sources and insufficient verifiability of the sources currently used. Auree ^★★ 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on coverage, both in terms of content and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom—kind of depressing that not a single editor made a comment here. Nobody wanted to work on the article? This once super active WikiProject seems quiet these days. Unfortunate. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: are you interested in keeping this Featured? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I've moved onto more local articles. I don't want to write about so much death and destruction anymore :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I feel the same way about extinct animal articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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