Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Charley (1998)/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 21:45, 1 April 2008.

Tropical Storm Charley (1998)

Self-Nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think its very comprehensive given the nature of the storm and its impacts, is well written, and complies with the MOS. TheNobleSith (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Compares well with the other tropical storm articles out there. One question, though. What effect did it have on the oil rigs and other offshore activity? That's usually a major impact of even a minor storm in the western Gulf, and I'd be interested in knowing more about that effect. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The impact on oil rigs is mentioned in the article. TheNobleSith (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The Mexican impact section is too short; I am positive there is more info, and here is a useful source to start with. There's no mention of any impact in Louisiana, despite that the rainfall map clearly indicates some rains fell there. Check the Wikilinks, and make sure all of them go to where they are supposed to go; I noticed four links in the lede alone were redirects. In the lede: Charely's impacts in Texas and Mexico were relatively light - I wouldn't call 20 deaths and $50 million in damage "relatively light". The storm history is awkward in places and could be better written, such as the first two sentences. One little thing I noticed: it intensified into a tropical depression - tropical disturbances don't intensify into a tropical depression. "Intensify" implies strength, but it was the fact a closed low-level circulation developed that caused it to develop into a depression, not stronger winds. Non-breaking spaces are needed throughout the article (200 miles, not 200 miles). The writing overall doesn't seem very professional. It could use more active verbs instead of linking verbs, for example. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have dealt with all of your critiques. TheNobleSith (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The Mexican section looks awkward, and presentation is an important aspect to an FA. On a similar note, is there a reason why Louisiana is after Mexico? Non-breaking spaces are needed, and I still count several redirects. My biggest objection is the writing. I do not think this article is near FA status, and my opposition remains. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll rewrite the entire storm history this evening. I honestly agree it needs it needs it. As for Louisiana coming after Mexico...I placed them in order of impacts. And yes, Mexico is awkward, will fix that. As for non-breaking spaces, I don't know how to do that. I'm using the convert template for the observations and other measurements. Where do I put non breaking spaces in for those? And what redirects do you mean?

I personally believe Louisiana should go before Texas (so the impact order would go counter-clockwise around the Gulf of Mexico). Please read up on WP:MOS, regarding the non-breaking spaces, as well as on other issues; there should be a non-breaking space between any number and the unit. Check the Wikilinks in the article. Some of them don't go to the right place. My biggest problem with the article is its writing, which I do not think passes FA criterion 1b. I recommend getting a copyeditor for the article, such as Tony1. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added roughly half of the non breaking spaces. Will do the rest shortly. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- ~~Consistency with either spelling out NHC or not would be nice.~~

All other links checked out fine with the tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. All now are "NHC". TheNobleSith (talk) 20:36, 29 March 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.