Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Nora (1997)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Hurricane Nora (1997)[edit]

Notified: Miss Madeline, Titoxd, Hurricanehink, WP Mexico, WP Weather, WP California, WP Arizona, talk page notice 2021-12-02

Review section[edit]

This 2007 FA has minor issues that should be an easy fix. I CCI cleared it over a year ago, so hopefully someone will take on the other sourcing issues mentioned on 2021-12-02, as well as any general updating needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the italics issue mention on talk, and started going through fixing the referencing formatting, but I think we're going to need a hurricane specialist here. The claim of " and one of the rare cyclones to make landfall in Baja California" isn't sourced anywhere and I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate and try to source this. There's a paywalled journal article about an analysis of rainwater chemical contamination comparing Nora to other storms, but nothing else really stands out as useful to add academic-coverage wise. This is related to damage at a proving ground and would be a single sentence in the article at most. Beyond that, I'm just seeing a master's thesis that we couldn't use anyway per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and this which doesn't look useful as its mainly a look at cirrus clouds with a little background in Nora. I don't feel comfortable trying to do the smallish content work since I know nothing of hurricanes, but if we can get a hurricane editor to help out in the smaller areas that need content-matter expertise, I'm willing to help work on this to push it over the line. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire MH section needs to be rewritten. Also needs stuff from NCEI with regards to US impacts. Some Spanish sources would be nice but idk if such exist here. I'll try to fill in myself but no promises here. YE Pacific Hurricane 08:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - no improvements since my handful of edits on December 2. I don't feel confident trying to fix the content issues myself. Hog Farm Talk 17:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no improvement (yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I ended up rewriting the MH and started digging through the Preps and Impacts section and took a wonder to the Wikipedia Library, where I found a lot of newspapers which need to be combed through for various preps and impacts to Califonia, Arizona, Nevada and a few other states. With the right support, I should be able to do this over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My work on Nora is starting to take shape with the preps and impacts now combined and split into the various impact zones. Southern Mexico, Utah and the other states more or less completed, this leaves Baja California, California and Arizona to go through, which is where the majority of Nora's wrath was unleashed.Jason Rees (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work ongoing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Nora has proved to be more significant and challenging than first thought, hopefully, I should be able to work on getting Arizona sorted later tonight before moving on to California and the rest of Mexico.Jason Rees (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot is needed to save the article. I’m borderline if it should be outright delisted or if it’s saveable at this time. 47.19.209.229 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud Jason for taking it on, but seeing the amount of work that has gone in to this already (with still a ways to go) gives me serious concerns about the status of all the other very old hurricane articles. This far in, and with Jason still gathering this list, makes me wonder how much will be needed on the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly feel that the article is saveable at this time but needs a lot more research and good dig through Mexican Newspapers and other Spanish Sources which I am attempting to do with Google Translate as I dont speak Spanish. @SandyGeorgia: Thank you for your applause for my hard work, I have found that I tend and need to be very through when looking for tropical cyclone impacts especially where I usually work in the South Pacific. Personally researching Nora has shown me that some of the older FA's from WPTC need some new love and attention as links have gone dead and we now have access to various resources including Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. I have fixed some of these while I have been researching Nora as some of the sources are the same. We also have to remember that Atlantic hurricanes between 1851 and 1970 with selected others (including Gloria 85) have been reanalylised by the NHC. However, I have an eye on a few of them including Gloria and Linda 1997, but who knows whats going to happen in the future.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep up the good work (by the way, I speak Spanish if you get into trouble ... recently I have decided that Google translate does a fairly decent job, compared to years ago, when it was dreadful). Just keep in mind that direct translations are plagiarism ... you still have to paraphrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, I should acknowledge that @TheAustinMan: has been helping me compile some of Nora's impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since my last update, I discovered a website that has various advisories from the US NWS on it, this included the tropical cyclone discussions issued by NHC on Nora, which prompted a significant rewrite of the Meteorological History. The NWS advisories will also have various effects on the United States Preps and Impacts sections and maybe even the Mexican ones.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize this has been a long haul, and again appreciate that Jason Rees has been willing to do it. I continue to believe we should leave this FAR open, as it provides a great example of why it is unlikely that we will be able to save other similar articles at FAR. We have hundreds of Cyclone articles to process, all need a CCI, and this FAR has made it obvious that the original notices, while brief, underscore potentially big problems in similar FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees this is now the oldest in the FAR section; how is it coming ? Do you have an estimate by when you might finish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its coming along but I have been struguling to get back into it over the last week for two main reasons, the first is that I have felt really rough in real life and tested postive for Covid. On top of which Gabrielle surprisingly appears to have become the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the SHEM over the last few days. There is a temptation to throw in the towel on Nora and move on, but I also feel that I have come this far with it that I had better try and finish it off.Jason Rees (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you feel better soon; keep us posted as to what you decide to do here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: My feeling is that there is a lot more work needed to bring Nora to a point, where the article could start to be assessed and at the moment it seems that my attention is being pulled elsewhere. As a result, I would suggest that we delist Nora and send it through the normal GA/FA processess when its ready to be fully reviewed.Jason Rees (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, Jason Rees, but thank you for the monumental effort. It was helpful in that it contributed to understanding of how much work will be needed to save the older storm stars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the original FAC, I am reminded of a general attitude that hurricanes are considered to be cool and recieve a lot of attention after a high impacting system like Katrina. As a result of this, more resources becoming available and Wikipedia's standards changing, I doubt that many high impacting systems will be able to get FA level without a lot of collaboration between editors.Jason Rees (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2023 (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_review/Hurricane_Nora_(1997)/archive1&oldid=1142911425"