Wikipedia:Featured article review/2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC) [1].

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it no longer meets the criteria of what a featured article is, especially in this project. The standards have significantly increased over the years and this article has sadly not kept up with the times. @JavaHurricane: posted about the article not meeting the standards on January 13 and there have been no comments so I am coming here. My main issues:

  • A citation needed tag for an entire paragraph
  • This is by far the largest issue... The article by far is not comprehensive in its coverage of storms. I understand this was literally the most active Atlantic season on record in terms of storms, but one sentence for a storm is not acceptable. Many smaller storms have virtually no information on them. Even the larger ones dont have enough. Not to mention there isn't much meteorology for individual storms. There is a list of storms for this season, but I dont see why it is needed considering the shape the main article is in at this point. If Pacific typhoon articles can contain even more storms, this should be able to have all the season's content. The storm sections need to be completely overhauled to conform to today's format. NoahTalk 04:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Noah! Another thing that I think should be done is that the lead and summary should be completely rewritten as the current versions are not up to the mark. A lot of the information is irrelevant or hyped up. Also, for the time being, the FA List-classification for the list of storms should be removed as that list is in a worse state. -- JavaHurricane 05:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson
This is just for the lead.

  • Per MOS:LEAD, a lead paragraph should generally have no more than four paragraphs, and I fail to see how this should be an exception\
  • the U.S. states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes; Cuba, the Bahamas, Haiti, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Tamaulipas were each struck once and brushed by at least one more is an example of inconsistent use of "the U.S. states..."; why is it used the first time but not the second, and shouldn't Tamaulipas be referred to as "the Mexican state of Tamaulipas", for consistency?
  • The 2005 season was the first to observe more tropical storms and cyclones in the Atlantic than in the West Pacific; on average, the latter experiences 26 tropical storms per year while the Atlantic only averages 12. This event was repeated in the 2010 season; however, the 2010 typhoon season broke the record for the fewest storms observed in a single year, while the 2005 typhoon season featured near-average activity. None of this is cited, nor is it brought up in the body.
  • The season officially began on June 1, 2005, and lasted until November 30, although it effectively persisted into January 2006 due to continued storm activity. While one could argue that the body backs up the last part of this with Zeta, none of the other stuff is cited. Perhaps every hurricane season officially begins on June 1 and/or ends on November 30, but this should be explicitly mentioned and cited.
  • The records section references a part of the body which is inadequately cited and fleshed out, IMO.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: the proposal is to merge the contents of four non-Featured articles into this Featured article. This means the (new) content in this Featured article would need to be reviewed to see if it still meets FAC standards, if the merge happens.
Conversely, the implication above is that this article is not currently at standard unless the merge happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Yes... that would be our job here. We would provide featured article reviews to fix issues and ensure that it meets FA at the end of this process. NoahTalk 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the plan of merging the season list article, statistics, and the two minor storm articles, while making sure that the article would still be up to featured article standards. There is currently a draft article, which I realize now is going to be a giant history merge, so much so that I'd suggest a redirect rather than doing a history merge once it is done, and leave the notice on the 2005 talk page. Still, that is where the users plan on incorporating the changes, given that the article is featured, and so is the list article). See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookkeeping mechanism for the featured list which will go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it needs something to link to on the article milestones. That's why the FLRC is needed, even if just for bookkeeping. NoahTalk 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger of the four aforementioned articles (storm list, statistics, Franklin, Philippe). Storm sections in the draft article need to be fleshed out more, particularly Maria, Nate, Philippe (merger should help for this one), Vince, Alpha, and Beta. I suppose most of the records from the statistics article will go into the seasonal summary or the storm sections themselves? Or maybe some could be moved over exclusively to List of Atlantic hurricane records instead to avoid bloating the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would additionally like to propose the merge of the 2005 Azores subtropical storm article into the new draft article. What content exists on this system is largely trivial and could effectively be covered in the individual section on the main page. In accordance with the aforementioned pages both here and on Hurricanehink's talk page, I do not see that this article has kept with the increased project standards of today. Cooper 23:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with no consensus to merge due to lack of participation in the last 8 days. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise when all is merged, and ready for review from others here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Please feel free to redirect the storm articles as soon you finish merging their contents. I removed the GA status from the articles as soon as we agreed to merge them since they were auto-negated by that consensus. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a few editors and I have worked together to redo the 2005 article, making sure every item is cited, all of the refs are working, and the article isn't too in depth for anything that already has an article, while also not giving undue weight to any one aspect. I believe the new article has achieved a good balance. And so, I'd like to submit this version of the article for FA review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all of you hurricane editors are now satisfied, I will look it over as soon as I can ... within the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that any major changes in size to the infoboxes should go through the project first as they would impact all of the project season articles. However, what could be done and needs to be done is too really look at what systems really need to be spun off into their own articles. For example: I feel that Delta needs more MH within its section while SS 22, Epilson and Zeta dont need articles as those articles seem very very bloated.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. What? I thought you just merged everything to there with agreement-- now we're talking about spinning stuff out again? Is my review premature ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I am only one editor but I personally feel that the whole process has been rushed and that the articles for Maria, Nate, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, Delta, Epilson, Zeta seem very bloated and are only marginally notable. Is the fact that a subtropical storm existed for 24 hours over open water really worth an article? Personally, I don't think so and I would propose a merger of those articles to the season article if it was worth it. I also feel that the sections need to be expanded out further especially the seasonal forecasts section which failed to mention any of the forecasts by Tropical Storm Risk until I started to add them in the other day. As a result, I would suggest that the article is downgraded until such a time that it properly meets the featured article criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. I thought I was reviewing an article that everyone agreed upon and was stable. You are saying there is more that should be merged here. OK, I will hold off on reviewing what is there now for compliance with WIAFA, as I don't want to get inbetween hurricanes :0 I will unwatch for now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I hate to say it... I agree with Jason on this one. After looking at this article and comparing it with similar seasons, this article is still not comprehensive enough to be FA quality. NoahTalk 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis not for me to disagree the hurricane editors! You might all decide, then, to ask the coords to Move to FARC for !voting Keep or Delist. If it's a Keep, I'll continue to work on it :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah
  • There is inconsistency in formatting for authors from the National Hurricane Center. Some have middle initials while others do not. Some are last, first while others just list the name in author format. NoahTalk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, best I can tell, we do not have consensus here among the hurricane editors, even after lots of work and discussion. Almost six weeks in, move to FARC to see where everyone stands and if this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal view is that it is salvageable which is why I am trying to help edit it when time allows and that it should look something like 1997-98 SPAC, 2011 AHS or 1995-96 SPAC. However, I need my fellow hurricane editors to stop talking about the US Election and provide opinons on wiki to help improve it. Otherwise I may look at AFD'ing a few articles.Jason Rees (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised include coverage/comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted comprehensiveness issues in the article, so I'd appreciate if he (or someone else) could point out where info is lacking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make people aware, I am planning to respond to this and all the offline taunts and comments I have seen in when I get five minutes either later today or tomorrow [Thursday].Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees

As I have noted above I believe that the article does not do an adequate job of telling the story of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This is because I feel that the sections do not tell the story of the systems, as they lack in several areas and have far too much whitespace. There is also too much of a reliance on sub-articles, which I feel should be merged into the article to help tell the story of the season, in order to make the article more comprehensive. I have been told offline that I'm bonkers for thinking that we should be telling the story of the season and that the article should be larger, however, I disagree as the readable prose size is only around 50 KB and the page size is barely half of what an average Pacific typhoon season with more systems is. As a result, I have decided to go through each of the sections and record my concerns for others to discuss:
  • The lead is meant to be a summary of the whole of the article, however, it currently isn't and could do with a paragraph or so on the seasonal forecasts.
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, with 31 tropical or subtropical cyclones - add monitored?
  • As a lay reader I would wonder whose National Hurricane Center named the systems. Fiji's, Papua New Guinea? Japan's?
  • a record 7 hurricanes were major hurricanes -> a record 7 hurricanes were classified as major hurricanes. I would also remove the which are a Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale" as i feel that a link to SSHWS would suffice.
  • I rewrote the seasonal forecasts section the other day, but I would not be surprised if it needs a copyedit.
  • The seasonal summary section has an interesting format that I like but needs several tweaks - for starters, I felt like the timeline image was too crowded, so i have broken it up a bit. I also don't see the point in having a gap in Lee and Gamma dates which i believe indicates that it weakened below tropical cyclone intensity when the average reader would just see a gap with no obvious explanation. I would also like to see the links removed per WP:Overlink, since they are not needed imo.
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record. - You say that it was the most active but don't specify if it was the most active TC season on record around the world or what.
  • ACE is, broadly speaking, a measure of the power of the hurricane multiplied by the length of time it existed, so storms that last a long time, as well as particularly strong hurricanes, have high ACEs. - I don't think we really need to define what ACE is within the main prose, bearing in mind that its mentioned twice and linked once in seasonal forecasts.
  • The second paragraph of the seasonal summary is pretty much unsourced. If I am to believe that the details all came from Reference 13, I would be very concerned that the AMS seasonal summary had not been used for stuff like that. In fact, that makes me wonder if we couldn't add some details in from Meteo France's seasonal summary or Cuba's seasonal summuary rather than just relying on NOAA ones.
  • Activity continued late in the season, with a record 10 storms forming in the last three months of the year. -> not true 11 storms formed.
Thanks for the review Jason. Responding to your points one by one. First, whitespace isn't inherently a problem. Because the article has so many storms, I think it's right that it leans on the sub-articles, and I disagree about the mergers. I added forecasts, added "recorded" (not "monitored"), specified NHC's role, disagreed about not clarifying about C3+ for major hurricanes, copyedited seasonal forecasts (and removed the monthly forecasts in favor of the whole season). As for the season summary, good call w/ Lee and Gamma, but I disagree with the linking (since it's useful to point to the storm article when we get the chance). Agreed about ACE. As for Ref 13, yep, the info comes from the Climate Prediction Center, which is a good resource. Is there anything missing from what's written that is in MF or Cuba's summary, or any other comprehensive issues? You're right about there being 11 storms in the last three months of the year, good catch, thanks for the feedback. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let people here know, due to the current crisis, the UK Government now considers me a key worker and I am trying to work all the hours I can within reason. As a result, I may not be able to respond as quickly as I may like to comments coming in here (Yes Hink im looking at you :P). Anyway, while I agree that a season article can have some whitespace in the article, this season does not currently have the right balance which is evidenced above by Sandy, suggesting that we look at reducing the size of the infoboxes above (Which isnt happening without a broader discussion on what the season articles should include). However, we will cross this bridge as we come to it by possibly expanding or tweaking the sections, where needed to present the information better.Jason Rees (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, for the sake of the FARC, do you think that the article needs to be removed as a featured article? Surely, it's only minor tweaks at this point, which wouldn't affect the stability of the article. The biggest change in its stability was when the List article was merged. So keep in mind the FA criteria when you're discussing expansions. That said, thank you for being a key worker in these weird times, and thank you for your review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still going

Is this FAR still continuing? It's been nearly 2 months since last discussion... 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly @Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, and Hurricanehink: I still feel that the merger of these FA's was rushed and that more details need to be added to the sections to tell the story of the season better. I look at Bret for example and see that it had minimal impact on Mexico and wonder if it shouldn't be merged into the season after we have plenty of seasons that have more storms than 2005 AHS. Similar reasoning/thoughts apply to the Azore subtropical storm and Zeta. I also feel that the seasonal summaries from Meteo France and Cuba that I linked above should have been added to in order to prove that the article has been well researched in more than just English. However, it has become clearer that the project and I have different ideas over the way the season should be laid out, as a result, I feel that it would be better for to recuse myself from the review.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have given up, as I don't know what to say about this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:, for what it's worth, we discussed merging the Azores storm and Zeta. There was no agreement to merge the former, and opposition to move the latter. I appreciate Jason's views on the articles and his edits. I hope we can find a resolution to the review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. This is very confusing— how on earth do y'all straighten this? ~ AC5230 talk 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ask @FAR coordinators: . Maybe with no consensus to delete, they default to Keep ... I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, there is no consensus of any articles we collectively want to merge into 2005. Jason mentioned Bret, the Azores storm, and Zeta, as well as other articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Fails criterion 2 in the first section and attempts to address the issue are reverted[2]. I see little point in reviewing the rest of the article when it fails in the first few lines. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you DrKay, I wasn't aware of that rule about the font size, and I don't think the user who reverted you did either. I brought up on the tropical cyclone WikiProject talk page, reminding users not to use the <small> in the infobox, and I'm going through other season articles to make sure we don't use it. I hope you can assume good faith with these actions and continue your review, as I believe the article is still up to featured article standards. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricanehink and DrKay: The manual of style is actually kinda wrong/contradicts itself... specifically mentions Outside article text, different font sizes are routinely used in navigation templates and infoboxes, tables (especially in larger ones), and some other contexts where alternatives are not available. This makes it seem like the smaller font size is okay when another part of the MOS says not to do it. NoahTalk 21:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I know my vote may not count as much since I'm still a new(ish) user, but I believe that the merging-of-Zeta proposal was closed prematurely. Just because it's the most active season, does it really need to have 25 (or is it 26?) articles for the storms? Answer: No. Pleased to be in this FAR, 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there aren't 25-26 articles to begin with and even if there were, it'd make a certain amount of sense precisely because it was the most active season on record and has so many sections, hence the urge for spinoffs. And I think it's out of line to call for a removal of an FA just because you want an article merged. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the article itself, from the talk page on March because no one replied to this then outside of the merging bit, I'll re-post. "In regards to what Hink wrote on Sunday, I don't like how there's not a single sentence in Katrina's section about the botched US response and the criticism they received. In general, this reminds me of Hurricane Andrew prior to FAC in that sense that many of the sections read as if it was an average system. There's nothing in the article (outside of mentioning Katrina was the second costliest system on record in the seasonal summary of all places) that resemble statements like "X was the worst storm to hit Y since Z". There's also not as much "X homes were damaged and Y were destroyed, leaving Z homeless." type of stuff as I would like either. I'm not as concerned about "telling the story" (because I think the article does a decent job of that as I am about not covering impact adequately tbh. Also Noah, the 2017 AHS is 150kb and that includes just 18 systems, so a 2005 equivalent would be approaching 200kb. That's insane." YE Pacific Hurricane 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually @Yellow Evan: I don't think it's insane to expect 2005 AHS to be approaching 150-200kb, especially since some of our more well developed WPAC and SPAC articles are above 100kb and approach 200kb.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't anywhere near 200kb. As of yesterday's season summary revision, it's only 134kb. 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right but the calls for expansion to that size and the notion that several articles should be absorbed into it would bring that closer to such territory (regardless if one thinks such mergers are good ideas). Although in addition to what I wrote above, CB has a valid point regarding the seasonal summary. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — page falls short of standards set by other season articles that are GAs. Storm sections lack sufficient content and the season summary doesn't really cover the appropriate synoptic information that would be expected for a season this prolific. The section is almost exclusively about damage. There are likely journal articles covering the relevant meteorological info. As of this comment, the article is only at 47 kB by prose size which leaves ample room for expansion. It still needs extensive work to reach FA-level imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Main concerns addressed so striking delist but some additional work is needed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I struck my previous stance on the article which was only a razor-thin keep at best. I re-reviewed the entire thing in much more detail and looked at some of the opinions of other editors. In addition, I checked over numerous other articles of similar activity in the Atlantic and they have outdone 2005 at GA level. Given this is still lacking in the storm sections as well as what CB mentioned above, I have to say delist. NoahTalk 19:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given GC and Hink seem to be addressing the concerns raised, I think this is quite premature. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Main issues I see

@Hurricanehink and 12george1:

  • Dennis and Emily should have some aftermath
  • Environmental impact/oil spills should be mentioned for Katrina
  • Criticism of the govt response and outside help should be summarized as well
  • Aftermath needs added for Rita, Wilma, and Stan
  • Citation overkill in a few spots
  • I think we should mention economic costs and take them into the total for the storm as they are quite an important part. If a business is closed for weeks because of the physical damage from the storm, those losses should be counted. NoahTalk 01:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is adding the aftermath for the most impactful storms. NoahTalk 01:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added more about the environment, criticism, and international aid for Katrina. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck items that have been addressed. NoahTalk 12:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added aftermath for Wilma. What did you have in mind for citation overkill? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Any area with >5 citations on a sentence. NoahTalk 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that citation overkill is much of an issue, and I believe they're warranted in the article considering how much they're covering. Also, Dennis and Emily weren't terribly impactful storms in any one area, so I think it might be excessive going into the aftermath. As for the economic costs, that's not normally the basis for which we usually discuss storm damage. If a business was closed for a few weeks, then that damage is already going to be included in the physical/structural damage, which is how the NHC calculates storm damage. They don't include the indirect/business/tourism-related losses. Also, Wilma has aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees, Hurricane Noah, and John M Wolfson: What issues remain outstanding from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issues have been addressed. NoahTalk 16:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still see many DUPLINKs and 2005 values not having their inflated values given, but I'm busy with other things on Wikipedia at the moment so won't have the time or will to look much further, so if consensus develops to keep don't let me get in the way. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson:, I just removed all of the duplicate links I could find. Thanks for pointing that out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 season is still linked twice in the "Storm names" section, but other than that good job. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that one! Thanks for catching that John M Wolfson. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1&oldid=968372977"