Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New Jersey hurricanes

List of New Jersey hurricanes

Self nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I wrote this one, and feel it is very thorough for such a topic. To my knowledge, no other such list exists. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support with the disclaimer that I have done significant edits to this article. It meets the criteria, and is interesting. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, effective lead, extensively referenced, not a red link in site, nice images. Phoenix2 23:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, way better than the List of New England hurricanes! Only one suggestion, maybe you could put a pic of a storm in the 1950-79 section. Other than that, awesome! Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 23:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I uploaded an image of damage for the 1900-1949 section, though for some weird reason, it isn't showing up. Here's the link for the uploaded file on Commons. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reason: known technical difficulities having to do with different database servers for enwiki and commons. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you have any idea how long the problem will take to fix? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It should be fixed now. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Cool. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks very nice. Tuf-Kat 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, complete list, comprehensive, well-written. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well done on this list, but I was thinking some maybe commentary at the beginning of each section would increase the usability of the list. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I understand that, but do you mean something like, "The 1980s was a relatively active decade, with 8 tropical cyclones affecting the state. The most notable storm of the decade was Hurricane Gloria in 1985, which was originally predicted to strike the state. The hurricane caused minor damage throughout the state. " Hurricanehink (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I meant, yes. Sorry for not being more specific. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 16:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~all of the numbers need conversions and nbsp;s though, I'll work on doing that asap.~~ AndyZ _t 00:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Done. AndyZ _t 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Usually, consider it as a guidance that a list may not qualify as featured just because no other extensive list exists. Yet, this is a good list. Shows good workmanship. -- Chez ^{(Discuss / Email)} • 05:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is rather ugly: I think the main reason is that it is rather dense: that is, there is rather a lot of information for a bullet-point list. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we remove bullet point, are you saying? How else can we remove the "ugliness"? Hurricanehink (talk) 11:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure - some kind of table, perhaps? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well there are tables at the bottom. In addition, here is a previous version which had tables for the storms. I just don't think it worked. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (possibly a mild oppose, if anything...) - the web references are extensive, but I'm not convinced that just including a date of last access turns a web address into an "academic quality" reference. Following {{cite web}} (although it's certain not true that all of those fields are necessary) perhaps a couple more things like the identity of the publisher and the title given to the page by the page itself would make it look more professional. For instance, rather than "^ NHC Floyd report accessed April 3, 2006" why not have "Preliminary Report: Hurricane Floyd". R. J. Pasch, T. B. Kimberlain and S. R. Stewart. National Hurricane Center. 18 November 1999. URL accessed April 3, 2006". I think holding featured content to this standard would make the work look much more professional and academic. TheGrappler 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'm working on it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, thanks for that. Quick quibble: could the dates be given in the references in full (so "May 27, 2006" not just "May 27")? As time ticks they might be left looking a bit odd otherwise! You were right (and I was wrong) to include full author names (that's according to Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). TheGrappler 17:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not quite finished with the references, but I'll finish them tonight or tomorrow. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. In the references, every link has April 6, 2006. Lucky me for the author's names :) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my bad, for some reason the {{Cite web|year= 2006}} year attribute doesn't work, which is why they didn't show up. I have fixed it now (I'll be going through and fixing the references also). AndyZ _t 23:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No biggie. Thanks for your work on the refs. I can't do them now, but I might be able to finish them tomorrow. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely oppose until contradiction straightened out - as I put in a pair of meta:EasyTimelines to cover these storms, I noticed that there was an unpleasant contradiction between the main text and the "deadliest storms" table. Hurricane Doria killed three people in 1967 (this is mentioned in the table) but Tropical Storm Doria apparently also killed three in 1971 - and isn't mentioned in the table. Is this due to a mix-up between names? Was Tropical Storm Doria non-lethal? Or was it simply missed out of the table? If both should be in the table, can they be disambiguated in some way? Hurricane Edouard is missing from the table but is listed as causing two deaths. It ought to be noted (for Isabel and Donna, each having one indirect death) that only directly caused deaths are counted. The 1933 storm is listed as causing "many casualties" so ought to be one of the higher ones in the list (presumably), but the exact number isn't given and it isn't placed in the table. It's clearly not explained by the table excluding deaths offshore, since many of the casualties given for other storms were drownings. This all needs getting sorted out, preferably by someone with access to Buchholz and Savadore. This is probably my last remaining quibble but I can't see that this should be FL'd until it gets sorted... after that this will be an absolutely brilliant list! TheGrappler 03:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed most of that. Thanks! I'm only human, and people can make mistakes. I responded on the NJ talk page. Also, the list does include offshore deaths. Otherwise, it might get confusing. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fixing efforts are appreciated! It will be difficult to fix the page entirely, or to ensure it is 100% complete and consistent with all known records, because it seems to be the first attempt at a comprehensive list. I do not believe this should be penalised on FLC, especially since it shows Wikipedia at its best and most valuable. My solution to the problem of accuracy has been to append a "Recorded storms causing deaths in New Jersey include:" note infront of the table, following on from the note added by Hurricanehink that records the death toll in one of the storms as unknown. This acknowledges that the table is not necessarily 100% comprehensive. There may be a more elegant solution, but I'm not sure what. At any rate, I am satisfied that this list reaches the FL criteria, and change my position to support. The Cyclone Crew have done an outstanding job! TheGrappler 08:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The note you added works well. Thank you for all of your hard work. One thing, the old storms-by-month table is no longer needed, as the new one looks a lot nicer. Should I just remove it? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks, I didn't have to do any research, just a little bit of tidying up and redecoration, which is why I am so thankful to the cyclone projecteers! I'd keep both the table and the graph: in general, it's better practice to display a table of data for a chart as simple as a bar chart. Having the two side by side is no big deal. In its current state this has got to be one of the strongest FLC candidates ever: the final thing I would love to see before it's (apparently inevitable) promotion page-by-page citations from the main printed source, which would make fact-checking easier and also get rid of the citation backlinks that currently list all the alphabet from "a" to "o"! TheGrappler 17:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Grr... that's going to take a while. School is taking away some of my time, and finding every citation from the 200+ page book is going to take some time. Does anyone even have the book for fact-checking? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        *It's okay, I'm not actually objecting! But that would be the icing on the cake if it happened :)I guess it's what would probably be expected on a featured article, but I can't foresee it not making featured list because of it. TheGrappler 19:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Cool. I guess the cake won't have icing yet, as I have quite a few other projects I would like to do first. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a good article, but it has a lot of tables and charts, which are slow to load on some computers (i.e. mine) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WotGoPlunk (talk • contribs)

So should I remove the tablized version of the monthly thing be removed? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Charts and tables are par for the course for featured lists. Tables and charts complement eachother: the chart makes visual comparison easier but the table makes it easy to read accurate figures. I have always been taught "always include your table of data with a bar chart" so I'd run with that and keep both. TheGrappler 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, just checking. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, lets have a series of "List of State hurricane" articles, all FA's (who said the WikiProject lacked ambition?)...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming its complete. Good work by Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]