Hi editors. I am concerned that this article does not meet the featured article criteria. I have outlined some of my concerns below:
- The lede needs expansion, and should include information from the "Effects" and "Historical storms" sections
- There are sentences, paragraphs, and whole sections that do not have citations. I identified these with "citation needed" templates
- Multiple examples of MOS:SANDWICH
- The "Historical storms" section should be reformatted into multiple paragraphs, as the first one is too long. I am also sceptical that Hurricane Sandy in 2012 is the latest notable cyclone in this category.
Is anyone interested in improving this article? If not, it might be nominated for featured article review. Z1720 (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Just saw the message on my talk page following a rare login these days, so came to answer the following - I don't generally edid wikipedia these days.
- The historical storms section does not feature in the lede because there are so many possible historical storms that could be highlighted, none more deserving than the other. To mention that historical examples exist adds nothing to a concise and general overview/description/introduction of the phenomenon - either in terms of historic examples more generally, or a specific storm.
- In so far as the lede is a summary of the article content, the lede currently states of effects: "capable of producing anything from cloudiness and mild showers to heavy gales, thunderstorms, blizzards, and tornadoes". This is a broad and reasonable introductory summary of the possible effects of an extratropical cyclone - information which is expanded upon in the effects section.
- Many (if not all) of the statements marked as citation needed are statements that have been present in the article, broadly unchanged, since the article was given FA status. They are generally explanations of a natural consequence of other cited points or broadly accepted facts,and as such do not require citation. This is a dense and deeply technical article - it could, however, become a messy list of citation numbers instead?
- MOS:SANDWICH alludes to "layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity". No such structures are affected. In one or two places an image might look better on the right, but generally, no harm no foul here.
- The point of the historical storms section is neither to list every possible storm, nor to list the most recent storm of significance. It is to exemplify extratropical cyclones through the presentation of a number of examples of storms which are both 1) of genuine significance, 3) may be known to the reader, and 3) have occured in history. To that effect, the fact that Hurricane Sandy (2012) is not the latest notable cyclone in history is irrelevant. As to the paragraphing, yes, they Historic Storms section could benefit with a line break between each given example. To add one would be trivial.
One thing I would very much like to encourage, however, is a comparison of the article now to the point at which it was given featured status. To do so may be enlightening. While there are may be some room for improvement, this article is not significantly flawed even in its current guise.
It is, however, I notice, a target for vandalism of late. Crimsone (talk) 04:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Crimsone: thanks for commenting on my concerns. For full disclosure, this article was reviewed as part of unreviewed featured articles to make sure older FAs meet today's FA standards. I am excited that, after I nominated this article for WP:FAC, some editors stepped forward saying they were going to fix it up. I hope you will return to help with this task. I will still address your comments below:
- I do not believe that every storm needs to highlighted in the lede, but I think some historical storms can be mentioned as examples of this type of cyclone. My philosophy on a lede is, if it has a level 2 heading in the article, the section should be summarized in the lede (and sometimes the summary is as short as one sentence).
- The effects are summarized in the lede, but some of the other sections are missing. I think some important concepts can be introduced in the lede.
- The FA citation criteria have been heightened since this article was promoted. Statements that did not need a citation in 2006 might need a citation now. I reviewed the citation needed templates I added and feel that they are warranted. Although an expert in this topic might not need a citation of the natural consequences of an action, a non-expert reader like me cannot make those assumptions and does not know that they are broadly accepted facts. This might mean adding citation footnotes, but it might also mean moving some citations to the end of the paragraph if it verifies the additional information.
- MOS:SANDWICH also talks about images, which is where the sandwiching is taking place. Some of this might be solved if more text is added, by moving images or by removing unnecessary images.
- We don't need to list every extratropical storm, but I was asking if there were other historical storms that could be listed. Looking at the section now, I see that the very large paragraph has been split into smaller paragraphs, which is also not ideal. Is there a middle ground, with medium-length paragraphs?
- Let me know if you have any questions or want me to look at the article again. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
