Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Willa/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [1].

Hurricane Willa[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC), ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}, and ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Willa, the most impactful storm of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season. Gosh... what a long and difficult road it has been with this season, but well worth it. I would like to invite @Hurricanehink: to join the nomination if he so wishes. Thank you to everyone who has helped with improving the coverage of this season. That being said, let the nomination commence. NoahTalk 12:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Noah, I co-nom this. It's an impressive bit of collaboration among three users (and everyone else who worked on the article). I'm very proud of Noah's work on the 2018 PHS, which will make for an impressive FT soon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

All images are free. buidhe 23:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jarodalien[edit]

comment
why 13 hurricane at "Landfalling Pacific major hurricanes
Intensity is measured solely by wind speed"? Maybe cut off last three?--Jarodalien (talk) 03:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarodalien: The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is used to determine the Category of the storm based upon its wind speed. In this case, 14 storms at Category 3 intensity or higher have made landfall in the Pacific. Cutting off storms would made the entire the table inaccurate. NoahTalk 12:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah you're right, don't know why I missed last one is Willa! Sorry.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Only suggestion is add a note that "All damage values are in 2018...".--Jarodalien (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jarodalien, I added that note. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Airborne84[edit]

Pending. Airborne84 (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell a lot of work went into this, thanks. I'm still working through the article, and don't see any showstoppers. I'm listing some comments so you can start working them now if you'd like.

  • In general, it has some technical language that’s hard to understand for the average reader. E.g., “the storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I’d aim for more approachable versions of these passages. I’ll point out those I think would be best adjusted vs. having you guess. But feel free to push back if I ask if something can be explained better and it would be problematic.
  • Please do point out these spots! It's a tricky balance between being thorough and relying too much on jargon. I rewrote that passage you mentioned. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d break the first paragraph into two, both to better reflect the article and to align with MOS:BEGIN, Yours goes a bit beyond what the latter outlines for the first paragraph. I think just sketching out the context as per that guideline while shifting the Hurricane’s major muscle movements to a second paragraph will make it a bit more digestible for the average reader (like me) too.
  • I split it up, so the first one is more of a summary. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “After the storm, many individuals did not receive direct help from the government until many months had passed.” Which govt? Mexican? U.S.? Both? Consider also replacing one of the uses of “many” with a synonym. Perhaps “multiple” for the second one.
  • “People mainly relied on help from charitable organizations to recover and rebuild their damaged property.” This again is a bit vague. People in Mexico? The United States? Both countries?
  • Last sentence in the lede: “overall for the time it took to receive help” This is talking about the govt of Mexico. Should that be to provide help?
  • “the wave produced intermittent bursts of deep convection near a well-defined mid-level circulation center”. Deep convection is Wikilinked, but is there a way to translate "well-defined mid-level circulation center" for the layman? I know it might be a bit more wordy, but it would probably be worth it for someone who otherwise would just bleep over it, chalking it up as unintelligible jargon. Or perhaps a footnote would help if an explanation in the text would be too wordy.
Excellent, this version is much improved for the average reader. Thank you.
  • Consider how you might smooth the transition from preparation to impact. An FA should "tell a story" as much as possible. E.g., if there was a quote from a public official about finishing preparations right before impact, or something along those lines, that might make a good transition. This isn't a showstopper, and I wouldn't withhold support for this—just something to consider.
  • “a Hurricane Hunter aircraft was scheduled to survey the system for further development” From what country?
  • Clarified that it was a United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “The tropical wave moved into the East Pacific early on October 17 and quickly organized” Although from a non-expert perspective I can kind of imagine that a storm system organizes into something stronger, I don’t understand the link between a wave and organization.
  • I removed the "quickly organized", because it didn't really at this point in time. That came latter in the narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “At this point, the NHC assigned it the name Willa from its rotating list of names.” Is there a reason it would be italicized here but not elsewhere?
  • This is the point at which NHC gave the name. For the rest of the article, we use "Willa" as a mononym (instead of writing out TS Willa or Hurricane Willa every time). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just trying to find in the WP:MOS where it provided for italics for the first use of a name or term. Am I missing it?
  • The word “trough” is used twice. I recommend employing a very brief in-text aside to define that for the average reader, unless it will take more than a few words to do so, in which case perhaps a footnote is warranted.
  • Gave a brief explanation and a wikilink is there is they need more. NoahTalk 15:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banding features" Is there a way to translate or explain this? "Bands of rainclouds" or the like? Again, you want this to be as readable as possible for the average person.
  • Let me know if that is better. NoahTalk 15:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much, thank you. You could probably do without "significantly", but I leave that up to you.
  • “The storm developed an intermittent pinhole eye in the center of its convection as outflow became well-established.” I mentioned this above. Any way to translate this a bit for the average reader? Intermittent pinhole eye might be OK, but after that it gets tough to digest for the non-expert (at least in my non-expert opinion).
  • Was it the "outflow" or the wording? Is the current wording better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In footnote 1, “Operationally, Willa was reported as having intensified by 120 mph”. Does “operationally” add anything?
  • Operationally means something occurred while the storm was active rather than an adjustment in postseason storm reanalysis. NoahTalk 16:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend using non-breaking spaces before spaced en dashes. You can use the {{snd}} template or other tools.
  • English language titles of works in references should be in title case. E.g., reference 70, “Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update", should be in title case. You can check here in the MOS for foreign language caps use which is relevant to your reference list.
  • @Airborne84: I can't fix your example since it is in a template outside this article... unless you think that I should add the table into the article and fix the issue. The other English ones should be fixed. The MOS says that foreign language ones (modern) should be left in their original state. NoahTalk 16:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will follow with more later. Airborne84 (talk) 05:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Table: “Known Pacific hurricanes with at least $500 million in damage.” US dollars? Or is this part of the same external chart?
  • “Strong currents broke a fence for a crocodile habitat in La Manzanilla, allowing hundreds to escape.” ???Where are the crocodiles??? OK, you don't have to address this one. But I know at least one reader who's wondering.... :) Airborne84 (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to find this. I did a search and came up with nothing. News coverage in Mexico isn't particularly good so things like this are overlooked there. Also, this is the same issue for finding quotes from government officials. News sources dont cover that particularly well. NoahTalk 14:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.
  • Aftermath: “In total, 144 houses had been counted from October 23–28, while more than 2,000 were actually affected.” Should that be 144 houses had been damaged?
  • This is referring to an irregularity from the previous government. They ONLY COUNTED 144 homes but 2000+ were actually damaged. NoahTalk 15:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that the govt. was only aware of the 144 homes because they only counted 144 existing previously? In that case, I'd suggest adjusting the wording because right now it reads a bit confusing between the first and second part of the sentence. Perhaps "In total, only 144 houses had been counted to exist" or similar wording. An alternative would be to keep the initial wording but to finish with "while more than 2,000 actually existed and were affected" (but omit the italics).
@Airborne84: The govt only counted 144 as damaged and ignored the rest. Let me know if the new wording helps to fix the lack of clarity. NoahTalk 16:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good, thanks.
  • When you give lists of towns, such as these in Aftermath, is there a rationale for the order? “Tecuala, Acaponeta, Huajicori, Rosamorada, Santiago Ixcuintla, Tuxpan, Del Nayar and Ruiz” Airborne84 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put the two I saw in alphabetical order. Let me know if there are any others. NoahTalk 15:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered one more list of municipalities in the Preparations section. Please revert if it was ordered that way on purpose (e.g., population or geographic size, etc.)
  • URLs in references 76 and 77 don't go anywhere.
Yup. My bad. They're archived from the original. Missed that.
Last question was on the italics above.
@Airborne84: The MOS allows for italics to emphasize something... In this case, we are emphasizing that this is when the name was given by the NHC. NoahTalk 17:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem.
I find that it meets the FA criteria. Also bounced it off of similar Hurricane FA articles and it compares well. I'm supporting. Nice work!

Support by R8R[edit]

(should be able to start on Sunday)--R8R (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll now start the promised review. In general, I am not particularly knowledged about hurricanes so I found it at times a bit hard to follow the text. This wasn't overall too difficult, as generally the wikilinks needed to understand the text are there, although sometimes I could feel my lack of knowledge on the topic at hand. I will point out my moments of confusion and the bits where it seems to me some concepts could be explained in the text to increase readability, but I will leave those subject to your judgment because I also understand writing styles may vary, and for a good reason too. But generally, I personally try to make my texts as understandable as possible and maybe so do you (I've read earlier in this review that it may be the case).

  • on October 2 -- there are readers such as myself who skip the lead section when they want to read an article closely (I'll return to the lead section at the end of the review with some knowledge of what the article summarizes, and with that in mind I personally introduce terms (like acronyms) at the first occurrence in the text even if they've been introduced in the text. It could be a good idea to do the same here and mention the year at the first occurrence, too.
  • On October 14, the NHC began monitoring -- Similarly, perhaps it is a good idea to do the introduce the acronym here, especially so since you link "NHS" anyway. I noticed that even when the acronym is first introduced, the introduction could be better still: instead of the present "the National Hurricane Center (NHC)" you could use "United States' National Hurricane Center (NHC)"
  • Added the year after October 2 and introduced as National Hurricane Center (NHC) in text. NoahTalk 23:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that. But is there a reason why the country of the National Hurricane Center should not be mentioned? Since I'm so unfamiliar with the topic at hand, my first idea was that we were talking about a Mexican organization. As a rule of thumb, whenever introducing a new name, I usually introduce it by the nationality and occupation of the person whose name makes its first appearance in the text, such as "English physicist Isaac Newton." This is done so that a reader isn't surprised by a new name and doesn't form a question in their head like "who is that?" and his reading is not interrupted by such a question.--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • trough, an elongated region of low atmospheric pressure, -- just want to point out that explaining terms in the text like this is very useful (no action required)
  • Yes, We need people unfamiliar with the topic to tell us what needs explained better. NoahTalk 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • its low-level center becoming embedded beneath a central dense overcast -- this one is a bit difficult. What's a low-level center? Could the central dense overcast be explained here too?
  • Linked the first and gave a brief explanation for the second. NoahTalk 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 29 °C (84 °F) ... 195 mi (315 km) -- are metric units primary or are American customary units? (The degree Celsius is not strictly speaking a metric unit, but I presume you know what I mean.) This should be checked across the whole article
  • Fixed the two occurrences of this. Generally, the meteorological history often differs from the impact in terms of how units are displayed. This is the case if the main areas affected don't use imperial units. The one part is scientific while the rest of the article falls under MOS:TIES. I would consider the mixing of science with impact that has national ties a good reason to ignore consistency in this case (which the MOS states may occur). NoahTalk 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh... they should be the same now. I see there is inconsistency on this even for groups of articles. NoahTalk 11:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks much better now. Though I think the main unit for pressure should be inch of mercury? Upon some quick search for weather in various U.S. cities I find that pressure is given in inHg.--R8R (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tropical cyclones are measured with mbar (hPa) for their pressure. NoahTalk 13:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 925 mbar (27.3 inHg) -- it's generally great that both metric and American customary units are used. But in this particular case, I couldn't help but wonder if metric units are really needed. I come from a country that uses metric units myself, and I still noticed that the unit for atmospheric pressure used here (mmHg) is not mentioned. I can't help but wonder whether it would be a better idea to use mmHg instead of mbar; I don't know if there are places that actively use the bar as their primary unit. That being said, I don't insist on it if there's an established consensus to use the bar.
  • Millibars is a commonly used pressure unit. The National Hurricane Center uses millibars and converts to inHg. The regions outside the East Pacific and Atlantic use hPa as their official unit. 1 hPa = 1 mbar... NoahTalk 22:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well then. I'll trust your judgment on this one.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7:20 pm on October 23, local time -- Can't help but think it would be great to mention the specific timezone we're talking about. Also, what is the exact reason times in UTC use the 24-hour format and the local time in Mexico uses the 12-hour format?
  • I added that is MDT... Local times are always on 12-hour formats and UTC was created as a 24-hour system. Other than that, I don't know exactly why that is. NoahTalk 23:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Can you confirm that local times in Mexico use the 12-hour format? From what I could read in es:Husos_horarios_de_México, it seems that the Mexicans use the 24-hour format.--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • nor'easter -- that could be wikilinked, and I personally never heard the term before
  • Admiral Vidal Francisco Soberón Sanz, the Mexican Secretariat of the Navy -- the name is wikilinkable. Also, it appears to me it would be better if you said "Admiral Vidal Francisco Soberón Sanz of the Mexican Secretariat of the Navy" instead
  • Good, but that comma after "Navy" in the text looks misplaced. Is it? I've seen commas appear like that in American English, but I'm not sure if that's considered correct punctuation.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was misplaced. It has been removed. NoahTalk 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marine Plan -- I also don't know what that is, although I can guess. Would a link to Marine spatial planning be correct here?
  • Gave a brief explanation based upon what the source discussed was happening. NoahTalk 23:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 90 tonnes of food -- the word "tonne" seems a bit off to me in the context of American English. Is it or is it just me?
  • In this case, it is because tonnes are used in Mexico. NoahTalk 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question is not about the choice of units, but rather that of the name of the chosen unit. According to tonne, "The tonne (/tʌn/ (listen) or /tɒn/; symbol: t) is a metric unit of mass equal to 1,000 kilograms. It is commonly referred to as a metric ton in the United States. [...] In the United States, metric ton is the name for this unit used and recommended by NIST; an unqualified mention of a ton almost invariably refers to a short ton of 2,000 pounds (907 kg), and tonne is rarely used in speech or writing." The question is not why use tonnes instead of pounds, but rather why "tonnes" instead of "metric tons."--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to metric and added the conversion for US tons... neither are abbreviated as the abbreviations aren't commonly known and would confuse people (including myself). NoahTalk 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Diego, California; Tepic, Nayarit -- I recall looking it up, you put a comma here after the name of the state in such occurrences regardless of what the context is
  • Good catch with those two. NoahTalk 23:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great. On a similar note, could "In Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, and central Sinaloa" be rephrased to avoid the impression that the list included both Puerto Vallarta and Jalisco? For example, you could use "In central Sinaloa and Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco."--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @R8R: Just switched the order of them. Let me know if there is anything else. NoahTalk 17:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay; I'll take another look later.--R8R (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) in Jalisco employed 400 people -- perhaps use "The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) employed 400 people in Jalisco"?
  • My understanding is that this is a state agency instead of a federal one. I think that maybe lost by changing the location of Jalisco. NoahTalk 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. In that case, could this be expressed more clearly by using something like "The Jalisco state Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT)" or "The Ministry of Communications and Transportation (SCT) of the state of Jalisco"?--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

more to follow later--R8R (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • 17,000 ha (42,000 acres) -- strange formatting. If "acre" is meant to be a symbol, then it doesn't get a plural, or it could be "ac"
  • I asked someone about this before and I was told acre has no common abbreviation. Using ac would raise more questions than its worth. Also, the conversion template automatically lists anything other than 1 as "acres". NoahTalk 23:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems reasonable to me.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Coppel is introduced as "a nationwide department store," it would make sense if you also introduced Petróleos Mexicanos in the same manner.
  • I noticed that the added introduction is not currently given at the first mention of the company.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that. I forgot I had mentioned it in the preps section. NoahTalk 20:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, I also only noticed the earlier mention when I was confirming your "Done."--R8R (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would also be sensible to have the criticism of the actions of the Mexican government expressed a bit more clearly, perhaps by dedicating a paragraph solely to that.
  • @R8R: Actually, upon looking into this further I discovered that the source attributed criticism occurred for a storm that hit a few weeks prior when a similar incident occurred. Additionally, the agency in question was a state level one rather than the federal government. I adjusted that sentence in the lead so it just discusses the mattresses and loss of funds. NoahTalk 23:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article was enjoyable to read, and my lack of knowledge of the topic in question didn't affect my read too much. I am looking forward to seeing my comments resolved and supporting the nomination.--R8R (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@R8R: I have addressed or replied to most of the comments. I would like to leave this last one for either Hurricanehink or KN2731 as I am quite tired now. Let me know how the changes look. NoahTalk 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for this delay. I'll try to write my first responses tomorrow.--R8R (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine... Just keep in mind I won't be able to reply until after 3:30 PM EDT as I have to work 8 hours. NoahTalk 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's most certainly fine by me. I can't even really commit time to Wikipedia every day (including today, sorry), so I'm in no position to complain if you can't respond to all of my comments on the day I wrote them. If anything, it's me who should be afraid to stir up your impatience.--R8R (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been addressed, I am happy to support the nomination.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Balon Greyjoy[edit]

  • Article looks in pretty good shape! I'll be back later with additional comments! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, I am supporting it! My apologies for not following up more quickly! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Intro[edit]
  • When using "$306 million" I think it should be clarified if that's USD or MX. As I understand MOS:CURRENCY (this is the first time I've asked this question), it would be referring to MX, and doesn't require additional country designation, but I think it's a little confusing as earlier in the paragraph uses both MX and USD.
Meteorological history[edit]
  • "United States Air Force Reserve Hurricane Hunter aircraft" I would link the Lockheed WC-130 instead of the squadron, or link both of them, but not just the squadron. I would also use the squadron's name, not its nickname of Hurricane Hunter. I would also remove "United States Air Force Reserve" from the link, or link it to the actual Air Force Reserve Command page. My take is: "A [[Lockheed WC-130|WC-130]] aircraft from the [[Air Force Reserve Command|United States Air Force Reserve]] [[53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron]] was scheduled..."
    • Sounds good, reworded accordingly and got rid of the semicolon in front which would make the sentence too long. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

I see it's on the needs source review list. @R8R: have your concerns been satisfied? --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: R8R said he will try to get back sometime this week or next as he is busy. NoahTalk 16:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I said so but it was in an edit summary so that why you couldn't see it. Anyway, I am now ready to support the nomination.--R8R (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Would you be willing to do a source review for this article? It would be greatly appreciated. NoahTalk 18:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria did a source review, for which I'm quite appreciative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose It appears Ealdgyth is busy in real life right now. NoahTalk 14:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, and with the disclaimer that I don't speak Spanish

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be cited in the text - for example, that it was the strongest to make landfall in Sinaloa since Lane
  • I added content and a source about Willa being the strongest to hit Sinaloa since Lane 06. I removed the bit about Willa being the 5th costliest, as I didn't feel the template citing it was a good enough citation to say Willa was definitely the 5th costliest. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the content in the See also section warrants citing
  • FN1: |work= should be removed
  • Is there a reason FN14 uses a different template from the other reports? Ditto FN73, check for others
  • FN15's range should use an endash
  • Be consistent in when locations are included
  • FNs 38 and 40 are to the same source but are formatted differently; ditto FNs 114 and 117, check for others
  • Fn44: given publisher is a work title - check for others, there's quite a few of these errors
  • How come only some refs have title translations?
  • What makes Animal Politico a high-quality reliable source? Riodoce? Sopitas? LadoB?
  • "Animal Politico" has an article in the Spanish Wikipedia, which describes the website as "...an independent digital publication born in Mexico in 2010 focused on the country's political information." It then goes on to discuss the website, how it has over a million followers. Riodoce (per their "Who we are" section) is "a weekly newspaper that was born in February 2003, due to the need for Sinaloa to have a journalism more focused on the great problems the entity is experiencing, based mainly on investigation and from a critical perspective." Sopitas is "a site founded in 2005 by Francisco Alanís with the intention of offering an alternative and independent channel of information and entertainment to a generation that had been forgotten by the traditional media. Sopitas.com converges between music, sports, entertainment, technology, science, humanities and political and social movements with an approach and personality that has conquered a generation eager to discover new ways of consuming information." So basically an independent Spanish journalism website. LadoB (or La Dobe) is likewise another journalism hub, and their "Who we are" page lists their journalists on it. So these are all Spanish journalism sources, they all have been around a while, they all have sections on who their authors are and what their mission is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but the fact of being a journalism source that's been around a while doesn't automatically make them reliable in itself. What are their editorial policies? What are the backgrounds of the authors? Are the publishers well-regarded? Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), does that lend any credence toward these sources being reilable? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards for reporting, yes. Wikipedia articles, no. Anything else? At the moment I think LadoB passes, probably Animal Politico, I'm still not sure of the others. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN69 is missing diacritics on author name - check for others
    • Added, but haven't checked other refs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Checked all refs currently listed with authors and added a bunch of them. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN70: |work= should be removed
  • FN77: given author should be listed as publisher
  • FN81 is incomplete
  • FN82 is misformatted
    • Changed NWS to publisher and removed year (couldn't find it on the page). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes FN84 a high-quality reliable source?
  • The source's author has a master's of science in Atmospheric Science. NoahTalk 02:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 86 and 101 are the same source but have a different work title. Ditto FNs 61 and 67, check for others
    • Fixed these two. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noticed Televisa News and Noticieros Televisa are the same thing, replaced all instances of the former with the latter. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN115 should simply use CNN as publisher and no work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Willa/archive1&oldid=973208847"