Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 01:39, 16 August 2008 [1].

Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)

~~I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's become fashionable to flood FAC with hurricane articles again (sorry SANDY!).~~ The real reason is because I was waiting for the other tropical cyclone FAC's to end, so as to not cause a flood. I wrote this article a few weeks ago, to the same standards as Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan and Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, and I believe it's up to scraps. Any comments? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed out a potentially bad taste opening line. Any comments? I'd love some feedback, really! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources look good. Seems to comply with MoS, as well. I'll try to take a look at the prose later. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image licensing checks out. Plasticup ^T/C 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Support I mentioned this in a previous cyclone FAC, but I'm not sure whether a change is actually required. In every citation only the publication year is listed, rather than the full date. When the full date is available should it be given, or is the year sufficient? Plasticup ^T/C 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, the year of publication is fine. Adding the full date is typically optional. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the full date is known, it should be used. (WP:CITE has been fiddled with lately and is a mess, but the citation templates say the full date should be used when known. Common sense also would indicate that a source is easier to locate if you have full information.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, I converted them to the full publish date. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While reading the article, I noticed that in the lead, it says the storm dissipated on the 29th, while the infobox says it dissipated the 28th. Which is correct? Calor (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified that. The Infobox dissipation date is for when it became extratropical, which was a day before it lost its identity. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thanks. If I find time, I'll review it in-depth some time tomorrow. Calor (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Comments~~

On September 11, convection became slightly better organized,[5] and the next day broad cyclonic turning became evident,[6] though overall development was hindered by upper-level wind shear from Hurricane Ivan in the Caribbean Sea,[7] as well as from an upper-level low to the north of the wave.[6] Longish sentence. Might be better split into two.

The temporary weakening was due to an increase in shear and dry air increased. Awkwardly worded. Change "dry air increased" to "increased dry air".

I would personally like to see the information about forecasts trimmed slightly. At least two paragraphs focus on that.

In the see also section, add a link to Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan.

~~Otherwise, it looks good. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Thanks, I got the first two things, and I added the link. In regards to the forecasting, I think that information is hugely important. Each of the two paragraphs on the forecasting could have represented significant changes in the storm, particularly the one where it could have gone out to sea. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Looks good. I still think one paragraph of forecasts would suffice, but that's a matter of personal preference rather than the criteria. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think that the storm's history has to be confined to what what actually happened. What almost happened and what could have happened are fair game. The storm would have been quite different if it had turned out to sea on the 25th. Plasticup ^T/C 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, images and references check out. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 16:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - References checked with DOI bot. Everything measures out alright. a great article, I hope hurricanehink gets more FAs than Emsworth. He certainly deserves to be #1. Cheers, --Meld shal 42? 19:31, 15 August 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.