Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/April 2013

Good topic candidates:

edit | discuss

Phedina

3 articles

Brazza's Martin

Mascarene Martin

Contributor(s): Jimfbleak

I give you the genus of African swallows and its only two members --Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All looks good. Et3rnal 19:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - neat little topic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  Nergaal (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic - GamerPro64 00:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1957 Atlantic hurricane season

edit | discuss

1957 Atlantic hurricane season

3 articles

Hurricane Audrey

Hurricane Carrie

Contributor(s): CrazyC83 and TheAustinMan

The 1957 Atlantic hurricane season includes a set of three good articles that constitute the particular season named in the topic. This GTC is the latest in

Comment according to the tool, Audrey has a couple of dead or dubious links. Otherwise, looks like a suitable candidate for a good topic. Although grey italic text is never a good

I fixed the dead links found in the aforementioned link (didn't do much about the connection-incident type references, there is not much that you can do about that). As for the grey italic text, they do say '(unused)' next to them, denoting that those names were not used during the season. I think the grey italics is more of an aesthetics thing, and does not give an 'advantage' to unimpaired readers over impaired readers. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm not convinced Audrey is still worthy of its GA status. The Texas and Louisiana sections have some unsourced sections (and don't seem all that comprehensive), and there is no aftermath, not to mention Records is unsourced. Sorry TAM, but I warned you a few weeks ago to improve Audrey before GTCing this. Fwiw, the MH and Canada sections look fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. The article is in better condition now, and I think it's worthy of its GA status. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate Comment - Would be helpful to get more comments before a consensus is made. If not, since someone has Opposed the topic nom so far, I will have to close it as failed. GamerPro64 20:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see above :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. Thank you Hink. GamerPro64 20:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support no reason to oppose.
  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support previous probs have been addressed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 14:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1955 Atlantic hurricane season

edit | discuss

1955 Atlantic hurricane season

7 articles

Hurricane Alice (2)

Hurricane Connie

Hurricane Diane

Hurricane Hilda

Hurricane Ione

Hurricane Janet

Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink, Thegreatdr, and TheAustinMan

This was once one of the worst Atlantic hurricane seasons in the project (in terms of quality). After hard work at in for only about a month and a half, we are now presenting it for Good Topic Candidacy. As all but Ione passed within that time period, these articles are clearly up to date with Good Article standards.--12george1 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC) --12george1 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom activated! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot to mention, this is a WikiCup nomination--12george1 (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Hurricane 2 got a parenthetical 2 after it's name?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 2 in parenthesis after Hurricane Alice because it formed in 1954, but it wasn't named in real time until 1955.--12george1 (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you guys decide on which seasons should have a separate timeline article?
  Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not exactly, we haven't reached consensus, but a general agreement and practice is that only the busiest seasons should have a timeline. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more of an optional thing, IMO should not be a requirement for GT.
      ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• 1955 Atlantic hurricane season
  • " was at the time the costliest" could use some commas after was and time.
  • What is an "average" season? More recent articles explain this.
  • "in the capital city" stupid Easter egg, why not just "in Mexico City"?
  • " 7 fatalities" -> MOSNUM (i.e. seven).
  • The "SS hurricane scale" doesn't need a capital H or last capital S.
  • Don't link common terms like "yacht"!
  • Don't use grey italics to distinguish one storm from another per ACCESS.
  • Please use en-dashes in the references per
    WP:DASH
    .
  • Nasty mix of date formats in the refs.
  • Naughty template with lovely colours which fails ACCESS.
• Hurricane Alice (December 1954)
  • "Saint-Barthélemy " has no hyphen.
  • Don't link common terms like satellite.
• Hurricane Connie
  • En-dash for the SSHS.
  • Avoid overlinking (e.g. Huron).
  • Refs for multiple pages should use pp. (e.g. ref 18).
  • Nasty mix of date formats in the refs.
• Hurricane Diane
  • Infobox says more than or equals to 184 killed, lead says 184.
  • Apply above comments like en-dashes and dates, and page ranges etc to this.
  • Mid-Atlantic section has a whopping " in Big Meadows.Cite error: A set of <ref> tags are missing the closing </ref>; see the help page." across it....
  • Don't overlink e.g. Poconos linked first and third time....
• Hurricane Hilda (1955)
  • Bad mix of date formats in the refs but otherwise not too shabby.
• Hurricane Ione
  • Should link what a "category 3" storm means in the lead.
  • Bad mix of date formats in the refs.
• Hurricane Janet
  • Source (in the table) should be Source(s).
  • Don't link common terms like liquor.
  • Don't repeat links in the See also section (like Dean) which have already been linked to.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • A few of these your mentioned are quite concerning and while I am not a delegate, these issues IMO are fairly small (in a few cases, not even part of the GA criteria) and IMO should not hold this topic back from promotion.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Despite the fact that the aforementioned issues are mostly minor, I went ahead and fixed most of them since they all, well, minor, and it prevents them from being a qualm in future situations. The issues I did not go through yet are linking of common terms, but this is not a factor in the overall GTC, and can be easily fixed using AWB, which I plan to do sometime soon. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may interest, please note I did not oppose the topic, I simply made an effort to actually look at the constituent parts rather than simply blindly supporting it. I appreciate that some editors aren't interested in maintaining the quality of the articles, but I also appreciate the work done by TheAustinMan in addressing the issues, even if everyone considered them to be "well, minor". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate Comment - This topic has been stalled since March 20th. It would be helpful if we get more responses before a consensus is reached. GamerPro64 05:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• support no reason to oppose here.
  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per comment above. Et3rnal 16:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The only problem I had with this was working out what the colours and numbers in the navbox meant, but that's because I live in the damp but hurricane-less UK, I imagine it's obvious on your side of the pond Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - nothing to see here.
  (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Atlantic hurricane season

edit | discuss

1992 Atlantic hurricane season

6 articles

Timeline

Tropical Depression One

Hurricane Andrew

Hurricane Bonnie

Tropical Storm Danielle

Contributor(s): 12george1, Hurricanehink, CrazyC83, Sunderland06

After an unsuccessful FAC of Hurricane Andrew last year, I decide to simply go for a GA. That action in turn left every article associated with the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season at least GA-quality. I myself also got the main article, 1992 Atlantic hurricane season, itself to GA. After slight revamps to old ones like Tropical Depression One and Hurricane Bonnie, I believe all the articles would still probably be considered a GA. Therefore, I think the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season should be considered a Good Topic. --12george1 (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a WikiCup nomination. Also, I am adding Hurricanehink as a co-nominator, as he did Tropical Depression One and Tropical Storm Danielle.--12george1 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also listing CrazyC83 (Hurricane Bonnie nominator) and Sunderland06 (Timeline nominator).--12george1 (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a dead link in the main topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why in the world
  Nergaal (talk) 06:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Danielle struck in an unusual part of the US (only two other storms have struck the Delmarva peninsula), and it killed two people. As for Bonnie, it was a long-lasting storm with an interesting meteorological history, so it would be a bit long (and receive
    WP:UNDUE weight) if it didn't have an article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Per Hurricanehink, Danielle struck an unusual part of the US, plus it clearly has enough impact to remain separate. As for Bonnie, I'm not sure. That storm was long-lasting, but there was no actual records broken or significant impact (1 fatality doesn't really cut it anymore).--12george1 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Negraal, are you kidding me? I'm sorry, but Danielle was a landfallling US storm. More times than not the fact alone is article worthy as US storms are likely to have significant information. And since when, does a storm have to affect land to get an article? I am sorry; however, I never understood the argument of "if there is less than six lines of impact, I'm merging it" or stuff like that. The Meteorological history section exists as well and will be moved to the season article in a merger, so it should count whether or not an article should stay IMO. Either way, neither of those two articles can fit inside their season articles. Not to mention, they are GA's so IMO, it is not worth like its like its existence is a huge deal. It's not like the article's existence is doing any harm to the site, the article is stable and in decent shape, does not require much maintenance (since these types of storms are simple to do), so why bother axing them? I realize you are sorta an outsider, but if you do not think Bonnie and Danielle should get article, which storm's should?
        ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]

  Let me clarify my point: a tropical storm hitting US is automatically notable? even if it had two fatalities and Overall damage from the storm was minimal.? How about a class 2 hurricane which had no effect and one indirect fatality? If the standards for articles are so low, maybe we should have an article on every earthquake on a 4-5 Richter scale.

  Nergaal (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Not every tropical storm hitting the US is automatically notable, but Danielle did affect an unusual part of the country. As for Bonnie, I don't think it's notable enough, but I have different standards from others in the project. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, assuming there is enough content for such article to exist. As for your point about a TS making landfall in the US, chances are that the there is enough content IMO for a stand-alone article. Ditto Bonnie, it may have been a Cat 2, but giving it's location it was not gonna get a whole lot stronger. The storm lasted a long time and thus IMO has enough information for it to exist. I mean, if an article was a little low on the info side, but if it was a very important storm, the article would IMO be able to stay, but for the most part it is all about content.

  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Ehh, disagree YE about the low info/important storm part. I think neither Danielle nor Bonnie were terribly important. I wouldn't lose sleep if either were merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that Bonnie and Danielle are IMO not the most important storm's ever.

  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 04:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Danielle, at the very least, is a meteorological enigma, and the fact that there is information about its impacts—even if minimal by natural disaster standards—makes for a decent article. By all accounts the existence of Danielle's article is a benefit to specialists and curious readers and a detriment to nobody. After all, what can be wrong with a well-sourced, refined entry, complete with high-quality illustrations, on a scientific topic? Bonnie is similarly enigmatic, and although I can see no reason for the removal of its article, a stronger argument could be made for Danielle's inclusion. To be clear, though, the category of a tropical cyclone means relatively little in many cases, as I'm sure is true of the intensity of an earthquake, whose impacts may be more readily determined by depth, location, building standards, etc. Keep in mind also that Wikipedia largely caters to individuals with very precise reading interests. I'm sure many meteorologists and scientists couldn't be bothered to read articles or topics on television programs, for instance, but that's why there's no tangible limit to the amount of pages the site can host. Juliancolton (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. It's one thing if you have a tropical storm in the middle of nowhere, but it's another if the storm did something interesting.

  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• The featured list needs some work.
  • Ref 2 is dead.
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summary fails
    WP:ACCESS
    (see more recent timelines).
    • How so?--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well advertised by now, {{
    WP:ACCESS
    as well.
    • How so?--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • See 2010 AHS FLC.
        ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Note 1 should have a properly formatted reference.
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• In the
  WP:ACCESS
  .
  • Few dodgy links in that article according to the tool.
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad use of bold in that article in the "Season effects" table (per
    WP:BADEMPHASIS
    ).
    • The bold is used to denote landfalls. However, I suppose I could remove the bolding for now and find an alternative later.--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, ref placement in that article needs work (no spaces between punctuation and refs).
    • Better?--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use grey text to differentiate one thing from another (per ACCESS).
• As for Tropical Depression One (1992), a couple of dubious links.
  • Nasty mixture of date formats in the refs.
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Things like "St Petersburg Times" should be in italics.
    • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Hurricane Andrew not in too bad a state but "Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale" should use en-dash (per
  WP:DASH
  ) and should have those overcapitalised words.
  • • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs shouldn't have spaces between them.
    • Better?--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, messy mix of date formats.
    • I can't fix either one of them, since they are both part of a template.--12george1 (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't use templates, or fix the templates so the date formats across all references are the same. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do use the template since saves having to go through each and every article to update the link every year, i also note that the dates in the template is consistently transposing the same date wichever article you go to where it is deployed so i dont really know what TRM is on about.Jason Rees (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed.
            ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Okay, well Ref 22 uses "February 12, 2013" as a publication date, while, say, Ref 26 uses "1992-10-30" as a publication date. Ref 21 uses "Retrieved August 10, 2011." while Ref 27 uses "Retrieved 2012-05-08." We should avoid mixing date formats like this (please refer
              MOS:DATEUNIFY). Do you know what I'm "on about" now? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • The format on 1992 AHS should now be consistent.Jason Rees (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Good news, Bonnie and Danielle look just about passable.

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the summaries (those timelines), please see 1955 Atlantic hurricane season for an example of accessibility. It's all about not just relying on the colour of the bar to convey the information (the classification) of the storm, e.g. by placing (C1) after the name. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has been considered quite controversial many times in this project, but I am okay with it as it is a fairly reasonable thing to ask, it's more than just a link of articles.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delegate Comment - This topic has been stalled since March 16th. It would be helpful if we get more responses before a consensus is reached. GamerPro64 05:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wizardman 18:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support no reason to oppose.
  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Please note that Hurricane Andrew is currently a Featured Article Candidate (FAC)--12george1 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 14:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch-class coastal defense ships

edit | discuss

Monarch-class coastal defense ship

4 articles

Monarch

Wien

Budapest

This is a good topic of some obscure Austro-Hungarian ships. They were a transitional type between the ironclads of the 1860s and '70s and the later pre-dreadnought battleships that the Austro-Hungarian government decided that it needed to have. They were used for coast bombardment duties during World War I before being hulked in the last year of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Brilliant work as usual Sturm, keep it up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - another excellent body of work. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great work as usual. Parsecboy (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 14:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]