Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/2003 Pacific typhoon season/archive1
2003 Pacific typhoon season
[edit]
13 articles
- Contributor(s): Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, TheAustinMan
The 2003 Pacific typhoon season, although producing a below average number of tropical cyclones, featured a plethora of storms striking anywhere from the Philippines to the Korean peninsula. This topic has been in the works for several months, and after lots of hard work, features 13 meticulously cited articles—12 good articles and one featured article—amounting to roughly 380,000 bytes of information providing what I believe to be the most comprehensive information on these storms. I hope you find this collection of articles covering the 2003 Pacific typhoon season a good read. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment It's a reasonable-looking set, but with a couple minor caveats: it might be good to state the selection criteria for what storm and typhoons got articles explicitly in the nom. I believe it's everything that made landfall, or otherwise caused disasters, but that's not stated explicitly. Secondly, the image is a bit small, and looks a bit odd because of that. I'd try to fix that slightly, perhaps by vertically aligning it if it can't be made bigger. Otherwise, I can't see a reason not to promote. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- The inclusion criteria was a bit loose with 2003 Pacific typhoon season, but we decided that the individual storm articles would be made if the storms received press coverage on its impacts outside of meteorological reports and disaster databases. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 23:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- And, largely whether there was enough info for a storm to have its own article. But that is largely the same as what the above user said. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- The inclusion criteria was a bit loose with 2003 Pacific typhoon season, but we decided that the individual storm articles would be made if the storms received press coverage on its impacts outside of meteorological reports and disaster databases. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 23:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delegate Comment - This nomination has been up for over a month now. Gotta have some more discussion so a consensus is reached. @Adam Cuerden:, is everything sufficient now? GamerPro64 23:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: Well, if AutinMan and HurricaneHink are in agreement that everything that should be covered is, I don't see a problem. Two experts agreeing are better than one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @TheAustinMan and Hurricanehink, so I just spent a while poking around—I'm not so familiar with the tropical storm quarter of WP. Where was this discussion had about which storms get their own articles? Is it all in one location? Saw that it wasn't on the talk page of the parent article so I'm not sure where it would be. czar ♔ 19:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- A few times over the past few years. Mostly, it just follows the WP guidelines, whether there is enough info in general to split it off from the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm assuming good faith that due diligence was done, but I'd still like to see the main discussion(s) if you can point me in the right direction czar ♔ 00:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there wasn't a primary discussion. We're just following Wikipedia:Article size. There have been numerous discussions over the years that confirm that every named tropical cyclone is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, so whether they get articles or not come down to whether there is enough info to warrant splitting it. It's essentially an editor's decision whether there is enough info or not. There are often cases where an article has enough info to exist on its own, or it could be condensed and summarized down, but the rule of thumbs is that the season article is the main article, with individual storm articles as sub-articles that are essentially split. This is by practice and some discussions that have taken place over the past nine years. I could get the discussion if you want to, but I'm not sure where it would be exactly! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. More for the sake of verifiability, I'd just like to be able to double-check that the scope is complete before I can put my support in the ring. Not sure you'll need it, though! czar ♔ 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, the deadliest storm without an article is Melor, which only killed four people and was short lived, and the costliest storm without an article was Chan-hom, but only due to a ship-wreck. Therefore, the scope is complete, and no other storms are going to get articles, on the simple basis that none of the others have enough additional info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I understand. More for the sake of verifiability, I'd just like to be able to double-check that the scope is complete before I can put my support in the ring. Not sure you'll need it, though! czar ♔ 23:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, there wasn't a primary discussion. We're just following Wikipedia:Article size. There have been numerous discussions over the years that confirm that every named tropical cyclone is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, so whether they get articles or not come down to whether there is enough info to warrant splitting it. It's essentially an editor's decision whether there is enough info or not. There are often cases where an article has enough info to exist on its own, or it could be condensed and summarized down, but the rule of thumbs is that the season article is the main article, with individual storm articles as sub-articles that are essentially split. This is by practice and some discussions that have taken place over the past nine years. I could get the discussion if you want to, but I'm not sure where it would be exactly! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm assuming good faith that due diligence was done, but I'd still like to see the main discussion(s) if you can point me in the right direction czar ♔ 00:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support I think that the assurance by the noms that this set is complete should be trusted. In my mind Hink and AutinMan are some of the best and most knowledgeable editors of hurricane articles. Also all articles look good. NickGibson3900 Talk 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support - basically per Nick: I'm not an expert in this area, but I trust their judgement on what storms should and should not have articles. Great work! Parsecboy (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think this nomination has been open for long enough. Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. If anyone does not agree with this outcome, you can take it to Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates. - GamerPro64 00:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)