Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison

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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 04:18, 5 September 2008 [1].

Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison[edit]

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone

I'm nominating this article because, at least to my biased eye, it seems to meet the criteria. It's your job to conform that for me. Thanks! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mm40

Per WP:MoS#Date: Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes or articles, or put a comma between month and year. Correct that in the first paragraph. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 12:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, but I'm not sure I see the issue. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
June 4, 2001 to June 18, 2001 in the first sentence. I'm not sure if it's a problem. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 17:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand that link correctly, those guidelines apply only to when there's just a month and a year in the prose without the accompanying day. Otherwise, all date-linked articles would fail MOS. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same thoughts here. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for being unclear. I was talking about the commas. Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was talking about the commas too. What you point out is not a MOS breach; it would be a MOS violation to have "June, 2001", but it cannot be a violation to have "June 4, 2001", as that is the format employed by the long-standing consensus on date linking. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. (As an aside, I remember this annoying stupid TS... it flooded my front yard! boo!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry if I brought back bad memories! –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments on images~~

Image concerns have been addressed. Awadewit (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Image:Allison 2001 track.png - The authors have to release the image into the PD - could they list their names?~~
- The image description already has a {{PD-self}}. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but without the author's names, we don't know who the "selves" are. Please see this dispatch, which has an entire section on correctly describing and tagging self-made images. Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I understand. The original "self" was User:Jdorje on Commons. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm a little hesitant to fix it due to this comment on my talk page. Category:Tropical cyclone tracks is going to be overhauled soon, and problems of this nature will be dealt by a bot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Will it be fixed in a week or so? Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I hope. If not, I can always just fix that image by itself (it involves adding an |author= parameter to the license template already on the page). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The authors of the image still need to be added. These will need to be added by hand and can be deduced from the history. Awadewit (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed (I hope!) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Image:Allison Flood Houston.jpg - The source link no longer works.~~
- I can't find a working link, so I replaced the image. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would help me so much if you would just link it here, since I am trying to review the images of all FACs! Awadewit (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alright, here it is: Image:TS Allison-LA.jpg. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This image looks fine. Awadewit (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These issues should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 20:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Like I said in the other "Meteorological history of Storm-Of-Some-Type-Or-Other X" article I reviewed, the first sentence is unncessarily awkward; you have the subject all mixed up. While it's technically correct, the reader might be scared off. It's not necessary to have the full article title bolded in the full sentence; it would be better if "Meteorological history of" was eliminated altogether.
- Done. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A low-level circulation developed on June 2 while 230 miles (370 km) south-southeast of Salina Cruz, Mexico." The prepositional phrase is lacking a subject.
- Fixed. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The storm rapidly strengthened to peak" - is this correct? It sound rather odd, but I'm unfamiliar with meteorological terminology. Even if it is, adding "its" before "peak" could increase readability.
- Reworded. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose of the lead is otherwise good. I'll read the article tomorrow. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the bold lead. It is not unduly awkward and it greatly promotes the article's subject. Yes, there may be a trade-off between writing a conventional opening and writing one that allows for a bold lead, but both options offer their own advantages and disadvantages. I come down on the side of the bold lead. Plasticup ^T/C 04:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison lasted from June 4, 2001 to June 18, 2001." - might just be me but I find this confusing. Could you reword it to something more noobie-friendly... if this is about the history of Allison, maybe "Tropical Storm Allison lasted from..."? —Giggy 10:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

"A low-level circulation developed on June 2 while 230 miles (370 km) south-southeast of Salina Cruz, Mexico." - same as point 2 above.
"Some intensification was projected, though was expected to be hindered by cool offshore sea surface temperatures." - missing a pronoun.
"with winds 50 mph (80 km/h)." - how about "with 50 mph (80 km/h) winds."?
"As the center reached Huntsville, Texas, a heavy rain band began to back build from Louisiana westward into Liberty County, Texas. This band caused additional flooding." - it sounds like you artificially split one sentence into two here.
"The storm began to intensify further" - I'm not sure why "began to" is necessary here. "The storm intensified further" would do just as well, and it would be more concise and provide better flow as well.
"The storm began tracking more towards the north-northeast in general" - awkward. Try "The storm began tracking in a generally northeasterly direction"
"The low was interacting with a frontal boundary, with which it started to merge" - could be better phrased as "The low was interacting with a frontal boundary and started to merge with it".
"The remnants of Allison briefly reintensified to a subtropical storm through baroclinic processes, though became extratropical while south of Long Island." - missing a pronoun here.
"What was once Tropical Storm Allison was absorbed by the frontal boundary by June 18" - "what was once" shouldn't be used in this manner.

Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Done with everything. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks good. Tony (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I read through this before the FAC and left comments on the article's page and they were all addressed at that time. A very thorough article. Plasticup ^T/C 13:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per Plasticup. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Karanacs (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. Two small questions for you and a comment [reply]

I don't understand this sentence very much - "Due to the cold-core nature of the upper low, Allison initially contained some subtropical characteristics with an upper level low to the southwest of the circulation" - is there a way to reword it a bit less jargony?
- I tried to reword it. any better? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure of what a "look" is in this respect - "what appeared to be a small counterclockwise look"
- Whoops, typo! Now "loop". –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This tropical storm was NASTY! Like Ealgdyth, I remember it well. Karanacs (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it was pretty bad. Of course, living nowhere near the Gulf Coast, I can't respect the damage the storm did, and to me the storm was pretty interesting, hence this article! :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Good job. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "mbar," "subtropical storm," "baroclinic," and "Cape Race, Newfoundland" link to redirect pages. Malinaccier (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Got it, thanks. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:44, 3 September 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.