Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 00:25, 11 January 2011 [1].

Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season

Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2004 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

Nominator(s): Dylan620 ^{(t • c)}, Iune (talk), 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completing a job started by User:Iune (with whom nomination credit is shared) back in August 2009; added sources, made tidy-ups to comply with modern TC season timeline standards, etc. Special thanks to User:Jason Rees for copyediting after the main body of cleanup efforts. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment – why is only one paragraph in the lede sourced/cited? StrPby (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding citations from monthly weather summaries to the lead; will finish tomorrow. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 01:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comments:
      - "Even though three storms affected land (Hurricane Javier, Tropical Storm Lester, and Tropical Depression Sixteen-E), impact from the season was minimal; in fact, the 2004 season was the first since 1990 not to produce any deaths." This line is still unsourced. Personally, I'm also unsure of the necessity of the "in fact" in that sentence. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Removed the whole line; coming to think about it, it's really just superfluous. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "July was considerably more active" – "considerably" seems like an unnecessary buffer word here. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "(Hurricane Howard formed in August, but became a major hurricane in September.)" I would unparenthesise the sentence and re-write it to fit into the flow better. Suggest "Hurricane Howard, which had formed in August, only became a major hurricane in September." Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - "1-minute peak sustained windspeeds" could do with some explanation, maybe as a footnote. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC
        Removed mention of minutes per Hurricanehink below. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Maybe add a sentence to the lede about the two different warning centres and the areas they are responsible for? It's mentioned a lot in the timeline that the "NHC passe[d] the primary warning responsibility ... to the CPHC as [storm] crosses 140°W." Making this clear in the lede would be nice. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 21:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - On that note, the first mentions of the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center need (NHC) and (CPHC) behind them as only the abbreviations are used in the rest of the article. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Added. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Standardise the hurricane categories. They're either Category One, Two, Three; category one, two, three; or Category 1, 2, 3. As it stands there are all three versions in the article. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can something weaken "into" an intensity rather than weaken "to" it? I can understand saying a hurricane has weakened into a tropical storm, but if you're using the word "intensity", it sounds weird. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 09:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - All the refs need to follow the same date format. You don't source 2 items, in July 4 and July 28, any reason why these aren't source?
Talk) 22:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
- Done. The two missing citations were accidentally overlooked. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All references should follow the same date format.
    Talk) 00:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - Done, misunderstood the first comment. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no issues with the article but as other editors seem to have extended issues with some of the content, I'm neutral until their problems are resolved.
        Nice Beaver) 02:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Oppose on principle. It is a
content fork of 2004 Pacific hurricane season
.
If it's a content fork because it's a timeline, then wouldn't all the featured timelines also be forks? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my oppose, as I don't feel it exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. It is essentially the same content as the
WP:SIGCOV. There is a potential issue on significant independent sources, given that all sources in the article (but #3) stem from the warning center. If you look at this list on its own (and not even comparing it to others), is the timeline of the 2004 PHS actually notable? In my opinion, it is definitely not. The season was below-average, and there was nothing special about its timeline. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

With the above issue notwithstanding, I have other concerns.
"Tropical Storm Agatha reaches its 1-minute peak sustained windspeeds of 60 mph (90 km/h)" - first, the grammar is poor. "Agatha reaches its windspeeds" is how it basically reads. Also, that is the only place in the article where you mention anything about minutes, so it has no context. Finally, 60 mph is not 90 km/h, that is incorrectly converted. Please fix all conversions in the article, if the article is even to stay.
Removed mention of minutes. My argument for that conversion staying is that 60 mph is a rounded estimate of the conversion from 50 knots, which converts into 90 km/h. If that's an insufficient argument, however, I would be glad to fix that conversion. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 50 knots is 57.5 mph, which is 92.9 km/h, which is rounded to 95 km/h. Please be more careful. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Hurricane Darby intensifies into a Category 3 major hurricane and becomes the first Pacific major hurricane since Hurricane Kenna (2002)" - try rewording so the year isn't in parenthesis~~
- Strange, I thought parentheses weren't there to begin with... oh well, fixed anyway. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several of the storms don't have a location where they attained peak winds.
- I don't remember this being consensus; could you please direct me to such a discussion that declared so? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does there have to be a consensus? It doesn't do anything if a long-lived storm has a location where it formed, and there is no indication where it moved and where it peaked. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Noted, and added. (Note: the diff contains many other fixes as well.) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see you added lat/lon to several storms - that helps no one. You should say where the storm was in relation to some major city. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That's only possible with Isis (1,260 nautical miles west Cabo San Lucas) and Javier (270 nautical miles south-southwest of Manzanillo), unless you want me to use the best tracks to give generic statements such as "south of Cabo San Lucas" or "offshore Mexico" without saying how far away in those directions. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I should add that you don't need to have peak intensity locations for every system, particularly when they are short-lived or don't move much. It's just that for the storms that last a few days, there is no indication where the storm went or what it did. Part of that is the reason I dislike the timeline articles, as they just repeat what is done in the storm section but with less information. But, if this were to stay, it should be deserving of its FL star. I think I'm mostly looking for locations of the peak for Javier, Isis, and Howard. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this edit did the trick. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. "Tropical Depression Three-E forms at 14.6°N, 105.5°W." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Blas' TCR didn't give the formation of the storm in relation to any major city; the lat-long coordinates were all I could find in that case. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--**You do realize there is such a thing as a latitude/longitude calculator, right? Just plop in the city's and storm's coordinates. For whenever the distance is needed, you always have the option of putting a location in. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the relative location to Manzanillo, with a footnote (though that likely needs to be copyedited). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~There is an inconsistency between using miles and nautical miles - why?~~
- Because there's also inconsistency between that information in sources. For instance, Blas' TCR doesn't use either for where it formed, so I had to use latitude and longitude. Also, the report on One-C gives the information in miles. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do know that nautical miles and miles can be easily converted, right? The project agreed that nautical miles shouldn't be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, not fixed. Check again. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        D'oh! Sorry, now it's fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure about that? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Tropical Depression Eight-E becomes a tropical storm and is named Frank, one of the few times a storm has survived crossing from the Atlantic to the Pacific" - it didn't though~~
- Maybe I'm interpreting incorrectly, but both the AMS annual summary and Frank's TCR say so. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But Earl didn't actually survive crossing from Atlantic to the Pacific. It dissipated, and the wave crossed. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 21:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Tropical Depression Ten-E forms about 525 nautical miles (972 km)" - why is it not rounded?
- Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c)} 18:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not think this article is a content fork. They are slightly different. This has recently been a hot topic at
^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The timeline also includes ..." just "It also includes..." is fine.
- Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"information" appears three times in that sentence, reads very awkwardly to me.
- That was copied from another timeline I sent through FLC back in 2009 - Timeline of the 1996 Atlantic hurricane season. If necessary, how should I reword this. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Darby can be linked in the lead.
In fact, you could link all named hurricanes with articles.
- Done, obviously including Darby. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graphical timeline needs en-dashes for the speed ranges.
- Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be two explanations in close proximity of the Saffir-Simpson scale (one in the timeline, one below the timeline) - are both needed?
- No; removed the one below the graph. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agatha image caption needs no full stop.
- Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"1200 UTC" missing a colon.
- Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"1125 km" missing a comma.
- Fixed using {{convert}}. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to relink Cabo San Lucas.
- Fixed, and I did the same thing with the Baja California peninsula. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid red links in See also sections.
- Fixed by
  User:TropicalAnalystwx13. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will see to the other concerns tomorrow. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 01:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments –

~~No need for two links of each hurricane center in the lead. One apiece will do just fine.~~
Fixed. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~The last See also link needs a dash in 2004-05. Oddly enough, an en dash is present in the link itself, just not in the piping. The 2003–04 link is exactly the opposite.~~ Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed (I think?) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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