Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/December 2017 North American winter storm/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 October 2024 [1].

December 2017 North American winter storm

Nominator(s): ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! This article regards a historic winter storm across the Southern United States in December 2017, which produced unusual amounts of snowfall across multiple states across the region. Developing from a cooled atmosphere and the resulting effects from cold temperatures and a cold front over Texas on December 5–7, the low-pressure area associated with the winter storm also caused heavy snowfall across the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern regions of the United States, before moving offshore into The Maritimes and eventually over the Atlantic Ocean as a low-pressure system. After traversing the open waters, the low-pressure system also caused high wind gusts and severe weather across Germany and Switzerland. Overall, this winter storm caused eight fatalities, 45 injuries, and $1.06 million in damage. This article is currently a GA and has passed a GAN on March 31 this year. This is also my first FAC nomination, and am looking forward to any comments or suggestions regarding this article! ~ Tails Wx 15:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

Drive-by comment: can we do no better for a map than File:Vapor imagery December winter storm 2017.png? It is rather low-quality and has a misleading GIF icon in the corner. Given that the data is in the public domain, I'm sure it's possible to find or even create a better visualization. Good luck on your first FAC! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, got that image switched out and replaced with File:December 2017 winter storm snowfall map SE US.jpg. Thanks, TechnoSquirrel69! ~ Tails Wx 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the map

Some images are missing alt text

File:Picture_of_snow-covered_Jackson,_Mississippi_from_above_December_2017.jpg is tagged as being under licensing review. Ditto File:Pilot_Mountain,_North_Carolina_December_2017_North_American_winter_storm.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I did scale up the map a bit; let me know if any further changes are needed for that image in terms of resizing or scaling (courtesy link to that respective section: #Meteorological synopsis). I did add alt text to the remaining images that didn't have them, and for now, I hid the two images and don't plan on changing that until either the licensing review is done or the files are deleted for whatever reason. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 04:46, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, scaling should be done using |upright= in order to respect user preferences - see MOS:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done here - I did set it to 1.6, as a side note. ~ Tails Wx 04:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Any chance this could be added to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/FAC urgents? ~ Tails Wx 21:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

Going to look although I know nothing about weather. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the lead image suits well because I can't see the falling snow, only read about it.
The damage seems a bit too detailed for an overview in the lead, for my taste.
In the sections following, it can probably not be helped that wording is repetitive.
I was prepared by the lead to read details about Sweden and Finland, but instead find Germany. I'm not sure that any European information belongs in an article about an American storm.
But if we have it, Germany: After Munich was mentioned, better let Starnberg etc follow which is close-by, and then the Black Forest, in a different state.
Still there: I'm not sure that one cancelled flight is relevant ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally: I am rather sure that countries such as Sweden don't need a link, per WP:OVERLINK, and feel the same for states such as Alabama. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've resolved most of those comments, Gerda Arendt, here and here; I'm confused on where the wording is repetitive, though. If I may ask, where is the repetitive wording? Is it "snowfall", "snow", the state names, or...? ~ Tails Wx 01:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for the fixes, I'll check later. About the repetition: I said it can probably not be helped. We are supposed to write engaging prose but - due to the report of many details of the same kind - the mostly repeated word is "was/were". Perhaps you and others who know English better know alternatives. Or not, no problem. Perhaps check for snowfalls/accidents in a row, the possibility of combination. I confess - also due to the hour of review because I didn't want to procrastinate for another day - I had trouble keeping my eyes open ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I am happy with the new lead image and your fixes. Another repeated phrase you want to check is "There were", - instead of "There were nearly 1,600 flights cancelled" you might write "Nearly 1,600 flights were cancelled", for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Gerda Arendt - done! Also removed a bit of repetition associated with "numerous" as well – wow, I really did repeat a lot of words throughout the article, for sure. ~ Tails Wx 01:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you. After changes by you and John, I support the article for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done

There appears to be scholarly literature on the topic not cited here, eg [2]

What is the source for regional snowfall index?

FN2 is missing an author. Ditto FN62 and 64, check throughout
Don't include www in website names

Why do some periodicals include ISSN and others not?
FNs 37 and 48 appear to be the same

What makes Crisis24 a high-quality reliable source. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, addressed some of the above (with adding the scholarly literature onto the article, adding ISSNs, removing "www" from website names and removing the duplicate reference). The source for the Regional Snowfall Index is the Regional Snowfall Index Map Viewer from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – or FN 15. The RSI for this winter storm can be found by selecting the respective dates for which the winter storm occurred (there is an option for Dec. 8 - Dec. 10, 2017 there somewhere). The URL does not update when I do this, sadly.

In regards to Crisis24, Crisis24 is a risk management firm that apparently also reports on considerably, but not necessarily significant events ("disruptive" ones, as they say). It is owned by GardaWorld, a security firm based in Quebec. While this is said, I think it's ok for international reporting although I'm not sure if this source should be used depending on your basis for reliable sources being "high-quality". ~ Tails Wx 05:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's something more to speak to quality, I'd suggest removing/replacing Crisis24. We also still have inconsistencies on ISSN inclusion (eg FN44) and missing authors/agencies (Eg FN80). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: that's done now. I've removed all content that was associated with the Crisis24 reference as well for now, and revised the injury toll as a result. ~ Tails Wx 03:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review.

"impacted parts of the Southern, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern United States, and later across parts of Europe". "... impacted parts of ... and impacted parts of ... and later across parts of Europe" is not grammatical. Maybe delete "across"?
The infobox has "Areas affected: Southern, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeastern United States", the lead has this plus "and later across parts of Europe".
"and later across parts of Europe in December 2017." needs a comma after "Europe".
"the Southern United States on December 8, producing rare snowfalls and causing travel impacts across the South." Two explicit references to the Southern United States/the South is not very "prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Maybe "... across the region" or similar?
"reaching the Big Bend and western Florida". This may be me not being familiar with the local nomenclature, but what is the difference between the Big Bend and western Florida? And could we have a bit more detail on where the Big Bens is, for the benefit of non-North American readers.
"The low then moved northeastward, reaching the Big Bend and western Florida, while continuing to produce snowfall north of the low". We don't need two explicit references to "the low" in one sentence. Suggest the "north of the low" → 'its north'.
"continuing to produce snowfall north of the low, across a narrow band". Why is there a comma here?
"The low then moved northeastward, reaching the Big Bend and western Florida, while continuing to produce snowfall north of the low, across a narrow band stretching from Alabama to North Carolina." Having three difference states in one sentence makes it difficult to parse. Suggest breaking this into two sentences.
"including parts of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States". "including", or only in?
"First developing as a low-pressure area in the Gulf of Mexico". Is it known when this happened?
"A second low-pressure area formed on December 9". Is it known where this happened?
"The storm was unofficially named Winter Storm Benji by The Weather Channel and Storm Zubin by Free University of Berlin". Lower-case t for The Weather Channel; and a definite article before "Free University of Berlin".
" After moving offshore, the low-pressure area strengthened, progressing over the northern Atlantic Ocean before moving over Sweden and Finland and dissipating." Could we avoid using "moving" twice in the sentence?

This is a lot of commentary for just the first paragraph of the lead, which would suggest that the article may be under prepared as yet for FAC. I'll have a look at a random paragraph from the main article to see if things improve. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of "North Carolina".

Some of this seems to give unecessary detail and not be in summary style. Eg "One crash injured two people and briefly closed all eastbound lanes of Interstate 40, and another crash near Sylva injured one person. A crash at a shopping center in Burke County injured one person, and several crashes occurred on the Triangle Expressway and on Interstate 540. Delays occurred across several highways, including on Interstate 26 and Interstate 40" could be '... and injured at least four people.'
"The heaviest snow fell across western areas of North Carolina ... the heaviest snow for the storm and in the state fell on Mount Mitchell, where 64 cm (25 in) was recorded" in one paragraph is repetitious and/or not well structured.
Some not well connected items have been put into one sentence. Eg "Delays occurred across several highways, including on Interstate 26 and Interstate 40, and the heaviest snow for the storm and in the state fell on Mount Mitchell, where 64 cm (25 in) was recorded."

I am sorry, but I am going to oppose. This needs substantial work on its prose before being considered for FAC. I would suggest withdrawal and putting it through GoCE and PR, and then - ideally - finding an FAC mentor before renominating. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, @Gog the Mild. Yeah, best option for now is to withdraw and improve thereafter. Thus, I'm withdrawing this nomination. ~ Tails Wx 21:45, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.