Wiki.RIP

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Ealdgyth—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

Rigel

Nominator(s): Lithopsian, Attic Salt & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I felt bad that Betelgeuse got lots of love and attention and its buddy Rigel was ignored...so a few of us astronomical-interested editors have been buffing this article for some time. After a few pauses and deep breaths (and second looks and a productive GA review from The Rambling Man, which was great for accessibility....here we are. This is a co-nomination so queries should be responded to pronto. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive by comment: I wonder if it would be good to note that we have not found any planets orbiting these stars somewhere in the article? It's the first thing I looked for but could not find it. Mattximus (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
A good question....very bright stars are difficult to investigate, so many have not been investigated in this way. We'd also need a source saying that someone had (unsuccessfully) tried I think. I'll have a look. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Lebanon national football team

Nominator(s): Nehme1499 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking to nominate this page, which is about the national association football team of the country of Lebanon. I have dedicated (most of) my Wikipedia career to this page, and I feel that it fits all the requirements. I'm open to discussion, and to improvements. Feel free to let me know if anything needs to be changed! Nehme1499 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

I'll hopefully undertake a more thorough review in due course, but a quick thing that's jumping out at me is the switching between the use of singular and plural at times when referring to the team itself. For example, a sentence such as "In 2007 Lebanon was seeded in the first round of the qualifiers for the 2010 World Cup, where they faced India" switches mid sentence. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I was afraid this would happen. I guess the copy edit (and the GAN) didn't take care of this. I'll look into this as soon as possible. Which form would be preferred? Singular or plural? Nehme1499 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Upon further inspection, I don’t think that the sentence you highlighted is incorrect. Isn’t the singular “they” for subjects without a gender correct? Nehme1499 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Amastra subsoror

2020-04-01 is over. (non-admin closure) Majavah (t/c) 11:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Nominator(s): Sdkb (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[April Fools!]

This article, about an extinct Hawaiian land snail, is as clearly ready for FA status as any article I have ever seen. Per criterion 1b it "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", as I cannot imagine anyone would want to know anything about this snail not found on the page. Per criterion 1e, it is extremely stable, having changed very little since August 2019. Finally, per criterion 4, it absolutely avoids "going into unnecessary detail". The other criteria are boring and can safely be ignored. Sdkb (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - nothing to add. But I think this should be sent to a scientific journal, Wikipedia is not a worthy venue. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, not the largest article, but it is quality stuff. Good tone, ect. Refrenced. Infobox. The perfect stub? >>BEANS X2t 09:41, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from KJP1

An interesting article on an often overlooked mollusc. Some comments for consideration below.

Lead
  • A little short for an FAC? although it does seem to cover, if not comprise, the contents of the article.
  • "The species was endemic to Maui" - while I appreciate that endemic may be the correct, technical term, I wonder if it is a little obscure for the general reader. To me, it sounds like they were crawling over every square inch of the place. "The species was found only in Maui..."?
  • "is thought to have gone extinct" - "have become"? Also, I note that NatureServe goes only so far as to suggest it is "possibly extinct", while the Red List is more definitive. Is your "thought to have" sufficient?
  • "the introduction of predators" - I think this could do with a little expansion, for which there's space. What predators and by whom were they introduced?
  • "predators to its habitat, the destruction of its habitat" - the close repetition of "habitat" jars a little. Replace one with "territory/environment"?
(talk page stalker) Or simply shorten to 'due to the introduction of predators'. Which I think is clear enough and may help to prevent any criterion 4 objections. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
References
  • Comprehensiveness
Somewhat surprised by the omission of Catalog of the Native Land and Freshwater Molluscs of the Hawaiian Islands; Cowie, Evenhuis and Christensen, 1995. Does that tome really have nothing to say of the snail?
Similarly, the detailed entry in Clench's New Names Introduced by H. A. Pilsbry in the Mollusca and Crustacea, here, [1], must surely warrant a mention.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game thinks it appropriate to record that the snail is not to be found in Idaho, [2]. I think we should too.

All in all, a most worthy effort. I look forward to supporting following consideration of the above. KJP1 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Image review - pass

The article is adequately illustrated for its length. Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Khemehekis

While I was reading this article, I found a link to the category "Extinct gastropods", and noticed the article Maiden rocksnail. I was wondering: Is Maiden rocksnail even more worthy? Or should it be deleted altogether, since Wikipedia requires multiple sources, and the maiden rocksnail is only mentioned non-trivially in one source? Khemehekis (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)



The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C.

Nominator(s): User:Harrias (talk), The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC),

A dark moment in my soul. Everything Manchester United touched seemed to fly into the net. A record-breaking match which stood the test of time, only having been equalled earlier this season. The article is about as comprehensive as it gets and has seen attention from both sides of the divide so hopefully that's reflected in the tone too. A co-nom between me and Harrias, I commend this article to the community. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

French battleship Bouvet

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The French battleship Bouvet was one of several older French and British battleships to meet a violent end during the Dardanelles campaign of World War I. I wrote an early version of the article many years ago, but as a number of other French battleship articles that have graced the FAC page of late, a new book published in 2017 allowed me to improve it considerably. The article has since passed a Milhist A-class review, and is hopefully up to snuff. Thanks to all who take the time to review it! Parsecboy (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

I reviewed at Milhist ACR late last year, so couldn't find a lot to quibble about. A few minor comments:

  • "much of the rest of the fleet waswere used"?
    • Done
  • "should be 45 cm (18 in) thick"
    • Done
  • link sea trial
    • Done
  • link ship commissioning
    • Done
  • first name for Adam?
    • Nothing I was able to find, unfortunately - Jordan & Caresse aren't fond of first names for some reason
  • what was the Division de complément?
    • Added a translation
  • in some spots you use Contre-amiral, others Rear Admiral. Suggest consistency.
    • Good catch
  • link battlecruiser
    • It's linked earlier at the mention of Goeben

That's all I've got. Nice job Nate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker. Parsecboy (talk) 16:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by WereSpielChequers

I made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not it's a wiki....

Are you sure you saved them? I don't see any edits from you (or anyone else in some time)
  • Have you considered mentioning who the ship was named after and how many other French war ships have borne this name?
    • It's there, in the box and then in the first para of the service history section
  • Do you think the article should have a little about the subsequent fate of the wreck and her war grave status? this looks like an interesting source though it has different crew figures and a slightly different sinking narrative.
    • That's a good source, thanks for pointing it out. I added a section on the wreck. I'll have to go through and see what other articles can be updated with it.
  • In a service life of nearly two decades there is no mention of equipment upgrades, though the crew figures quoted for the time of sinking were very different to those at commissioning. If the French made no discernible changes to warships of that era during their service life that might be worth mentioning, alternatively if there were some upgrades it would be worth covering that
    • I'm sure there were changes made, but the sources don't mention any specifically - Jordan & Caresse have an appendix on wartime changes made to French battleships, but it seems Bouvet didn't survive long enough to see any, and they don't cover any pre-war changes to the older ships.
  • The photos are presumably the best available to us, though I do wonder at the assumption of life plus 100 years re a 1915 photograph, but have you considered using File:Masséna Carnot Jauréguiberry Bouvet.jpg as an illustration of Bouvet with three of her half sisters?
    • The issue is whether it's out of copyright - I'd assume it's fine in the US, but we don't have publication data for the specific edition of L'Illustration it came from

More generally, nicely written, a pleasure to read. ϢereSpielChequers 07:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sergo Ordzhonikidze

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A leading Bolshevik and once a close friend of Stalin, Sergo Ordzhonikidze was very active in the early years of the Soviet Union. He served a variety of roles, from military commander to economic leader, and eventually fell out of favour with Stalin and shot himself. The article went through GA a while ago, and completed a Peer Review recently, so I'm bringing it here. I will also note that due to the COVID-19 situation I don't have access to many of the sources used, so please take that into consideration; I'll do everything else possible though, of course. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Operation Rösselsprung (1944)

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about an offensive that included the only Waffen-SS parachute operation of World War II, the mission of which was to kill or capture Josip Broz Tito, the leader of the Yugoslav Partisans. It was a coup de main operation, involved direct action by a parachute and glider-borne force landing at Tito's headquarters at Drvar in modern-day Bosnia and a planned linkup with ground forces converging on the town. The operation failed due to fierce Partisan resistance, the failure of German intelligence agencies to share limited intelligence on Tito's exact location, and lack of contingency planning by the junior officer commanding the airborne force. It has gone through GAN and Milhist ACR, and a bit of spring-cleaning, and hopefully balances the material available in Western, German and Yugoslav sources. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • The maps are all stated to be PD-Gov. Although I'm not an expert on post-Yugoslav copyright law, most European countries (unlike the US government) retain copyright on most government works. I don't see how these maps are part of legislation, laws, decrees, or administrative proceedings, so I don't think that they are free use.
  • They are definitely free use. They are official materials created by the Yugoslav government (the Yugoslav National Army) for the purpose of officially informing the public about the history of the war, per Art 8.2.1 of the copyright law of Croatia, which is a successor state. In the case of the Serbian successor state, per Art 6.(2) of the copyright law of Serbia they are official materials of the Yugoslav National Army (a state body) in performance of its public function of informing the public about the history of the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, B&H only exempts "official texts in the domain of legislation, administration and judiciary (laws, regulations, decisions, reports, minutes, judgments and alike)" This is not related to legislation, administration or judiciary so still protected. Slovenia exempts only "official legislative, administrative and judicial texts". So it does appear that Croatia and Serbia have more expansive waiving of government copyright, but Commons copyright rules don't make it clear whether the more lenient jurisdiction or the more strict one should be followed. buidhe 05:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • It was published in Belgrade, so logically the Serbian one is the most appropriate of the successor states to use. I don't see what the relevance of Slovenia is, none of this happened there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:57, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Relevant law doesn't mention place of publication as a consideration for succession of copyright. buidhe 07:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Absence of that doesn't mean it isn't a highly relevant factor. It is logical and reasonable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • File:Titova pecina prije rata.jpg—apparently there's no freedom of panorama in Bosnia. The cabin is the focus of the image and it may be sufficiently original for copyright protection.
  • You are right that B-H doesn't have FoP, but free use of works permanently located in places accessible to the public is permitted, per Art 52(1) of the B-H copyright law. That is the case here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Article 52(1) says "The free use of the works permanently located in squares, parks, streets or other places accessible by the public shall be permitted." It says nothing about "only non-commercial reproduction", where are you getting that from? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The works referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article shall not be reproduced in three-dimensional form, used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage.[2010 Article 52(2)]" buidhe 07:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In what way is this image used for the same purpose as the original work or used for gaining economic advantage? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • What this says is that "non-commercial reproduction" of publicly located structures is OK. But for Wikipedia purposes, "free" requires it being OK for commercial use. buidhe 00:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, OK. Does this apply if the building was extensively damaged during the Bosnian War (after this picture was taken) and had to be rebuilt? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Other images are fine, although I had to crop some potentially copyrighted background out of one of them. buidhe 08:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

Nb. It is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

  • "the German XV Mountain Corps and their allies" I don't think that you mean that they were allies of the German XV Mountain Corps.
  • "he was designated Marshal of Yugoslavia and prime minister." Why the upper case M?
  • "(0.62 mi)"! Maybe insert sigfig=1?
  • "The Unac River ran along the base of the ridge line above the cave" This reads as if the river ran above the cave.
  • " the Tito Escort Battalion which was responsible for his personal safety." I think "his" → 'Tito's'.
  • "At the time of Operation Rösselsprung (German: Unternehmen Rösselsprung)" Is there a reason why the translation to German is not given in the lead?
  • Optional: consider making the current sections 2, 3 and 4 sub-sections of "Background".
  • "Apart from Partisan headquarters and related organisations close in and around Drvar" Maybe delete "close"?
  • "there were between 12,000 and 16,000 Partisans" Genuine and open question: what is the justification for the upper case P in this particular usage?
  • It is capitalised in all the reliable sources, I expect to differentiate them from the generic "partisans", which could mean any irregulars. There were a lot of different irregular forces in Yugoslavia in WWII. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that and all of the other cases in this article - however oddly they read to me - follow what seems to be the RS style. (Although you boot some of the Medieval RSs equivalents straight out of my articles ;-).) It is this one, singular, case where an upper case is particularly debatable. But if you are content with it, fair enough.
  • "The nearest large Partisan formation to Drvar was the 3rd Lika Proletarian Brigade" Was "1st Proletarian Corps" not a Partisan formation? Or are you not considering it "large"? Or does "immediate vicinity" mean more than 10 km away?
  • only the corps HQ was located closer, its formations were spread out, and the nearest large formation was this brigade, part of the 6th Lika Division. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I struggle to see 'all 10 km or more away' as synonymous with "in the the immediate vicinity". I think that the latter needs tweaking.
  • "10 kilometres (6.2 mi)" sigfig?
  • "and 8th Corps" 'the'?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • "Three organisations attempted to" Possibly insert 'German' (or 'Axis')?
  • "both the Chetniks and Ustaše Militia" 'the Ustaše Militia'?
  • "after von Weichs had issued his orders" What orders? None have been mentioned.
Reads better.
  • "An ad-hoc Kampfgruppe Panzergrenadier Sturmbattalion manned by officer cadets" "manned" reads a little oddly. Perhaps 'made up of' or 'consisting of'?
  • Foreign words should use eg {{lang|de|xxxx}} wrap arounds, not ''xxxx''.
MOS:FOREIGNITALIC states "The {{lang}} template and its variants support all ISO 639 language codes, correctly identifying the language and automatically italicizing for you. Please use these templates rather than just manually italicizing non-English material."; MOS:OTHERLANG "Non-English words or phrases should be encased in {{lang}}, which uses ISO 639 language codes, thus: {{lang|fr|Assemblée nationale}}". WP:NONENGLISHTITLE says "It is fine to include foreign terms as extra information, but avoid writing articles that can only be understood if the reader understands the foreign terms. Such words are equivalent to jargon, which should be explained somehow."; which to me suggests that, for example, that instead of kampfgruppe, 'battlegroup' might be the better word, when it is not part of a formal title.
  • "with significant demolition and mining of roads" Is "significant" necessary?
  • well, it is more than insignificant demolition and mining of the roads. Is there a specific reason why we shouldn't use "significant"? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your point, and no alternative springs readily to mind. I wouldn't use it, but it's not my nomination.
  • "penetrate deeply into Partisans’ rear" 'the'.
  • "had become apparent by now, serious reorganisation of Partisan dispositions was now required." Consider deleting the second "now".
  • Aftermath: the detail given about Operation Flounced seems undue to me.
I still don't see what it is doing in the article at all, but now trimmed it doesn't, quite, trigger my personal criterion 4 threshold.

A lucid explanation of a complicated series of events. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Gog. I reckon I've addressed all your comments. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Looking good. A couple of points above where I have come back at you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

2019 Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The most recent race, which has had a a fair few contributors. I helped get it to a respectable state for ITN last July and soon after readied it for GAR, which it passed last week. My other Tour FAs are 2012 (17 January 2017) and 1962 (4 March 2019). BaldBoris 19:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from John M Wolfson

  • starting on 6 July in Brussels, Belgium, and concluding on 28 July with the Champs-Élysées stage in Paris. Inconsistent locations named (stages vs. cities, and the country given for Brussels but not Paris).
    Changed to ", starting in Belgian capital of Brussels on 6 July, before moving throughout France and concluding on the Champs-Élysées in Paris on 28 July." BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • honour of the 50th anniversary of the first Tour de France win of Eddy Merckx. Mention that Merckx is Belgian for those unfamiliar.
    Removed, as it's not leadworthy. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • the peloton (main group). The wikilink might be sufficient, but this might just be me.
    I've used "peloton (main group)" ever since I saw a comment made by the now-retired Neelix on this FAC. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • all of its eighteen UCI WorldTeams were entitled, and obliged, should be "18" per the MoS.
  • He then started the Tour de Suisse, but a crash on half-way through the nine-stage race saw him abandon and require recovery time. This put in doubt his ability to perform at the Tour. This could be combined; the latter sentence should at least be rewritten.
    Rewritten. If you care to take a look at the first two paragraphs, I've now reassessed the leading favourites as it caused quite a stir with users during the race and passed me by. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The entire route was unveiled on 25 October 2018, which the race director Christian Prudhomme described as "the highest Tour in history."The entire route, which the race director Christian Prudhomme described as "the highest Tour in history", was unveiled on 25 October 2018. Or something to that effect; I'm not a fan of deliberately introducing more commas, but I think the relative clause should be closer to the antecedent.
  • Four main individual classifications were contested in the 2019 Tour de France, as well as a team competition.Four main individual classifications and a team competition were contested in the race.
  • also holding the lead of the team and nation ranking respectively.[109][110] [108] There's an unwarranted space before the last ref, which is also out of order.
    A mistake I made yesterday. Removed. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise this looks good and I'm inclined to support. I intend to take WikiCup points from this review. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

All done, with replies. Thank you John. BaldBoris 02:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I have some more concerns.
    • Despite this, the decision of team leadership between him, Thomas and Egan Bernal was not yet resolved. I assume this means that who would be the race winner within the team was still uncertain, but this can be rewritten to be a lot clearer. Also, It's best practice to cite the sentences about Froome.
      The riders compete individually, apart from the team classification, but at all costs sacrifice winning for their team's leader, but when there's two or more equal leaders it becomes messy. I believe it's something quite unique to cycling and most don't initially understand. It's come up more than once in my past reviews. I've made it a bit clearer. Although I agree, both cites do cover all that precede them. BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
      I've now separated the cites. BaldBoris 05:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    • In the Tour, he was to share the leadership with Thomas according to the team,[27] although some in the media expected and internal battle between the two. This somewhat contradicts the assumption made above if I'm not mistaken. Please clarify what exactly team leadership is in this context. Also, I believe it should be "an internal battle."
      Hopefully it makes sense now. BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I think "collarbone" is common enough to not be linked.
    • Other riders expected to place high in the general classification, or in some cases being dark horses, were Separate the expected-high in classification riders and the dark horses into different sentences.
      Remove dark horses. I didn't write it and wouldn't have. BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Done the above. I've also just made a few final improvements to the "Classification leadership and minor prizes" section (sorry). BaldBoris 04:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Looks good now, enough for me to support. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks again, and good luck in the Cup! BaldBoris 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

1998 Tour de France

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC) and BaldBoris

This article is about the 85th running of the Tour de France, the most famous bicycle race in the world. It is pretty much in the same shape as when it passed GA, but I feel that it is close to FA as it is. Every comment and suggestion is very welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Route_of_the_1998_Tour_de_France.png: what data sources were used to create this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I don't know what the original creator of the graphic used all those years ago, but I've added a source for the information to the Wikicommons page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Racer's hurricane

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about a multi-faceted hurricane that proved one of the most severe of its time. It's among the earliest storms for which we have anything resembling a comprehensive record. Along its 2000+ mile track, it ensnared meteorologists, tossed ships ashore in droves, inundated barrier islands, and, as its last act, caused one of the great maritime tragedies of the 19th century. Using a variety of both contemporary and modern sources, I've created what I'm certain is the most comprehensive story ever told about this fascinating storm. With thanks to my long-term mentor Hurricanehink for his multiple reviews during the three-year improvement process, I humbly submit the article for FAC's consideration. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

==== Oppose by JavaHurricane: ==== I'm sorry Julian, but this article is not in a good shape. Hence, I must oppose.

  • "Racer's hurricane was a destructive tropical cyclone that had severe effects [...]": "destructive" and "severe" seems somewhat redundant to me. I would suggest changing "had severe effects" to "affected" or "impacted".
  • "It takes its name from [...]": change to "The hurricane is named after [...]".
  • "[...] the storm first affected Jamaica with flooding rainfall and strong winds [...]": what is "flooding rainfall"? Change to "heavy rainfall".
  • Flooding rainfall is when rainfall causes flooding. I like the current writing more than having to say "The hurricane produced heavy rainfall on Jamaica, causing flooding". Julian writes with appropriate brevity. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "[...] it slowed to a crawl [...]": could we use a better term than "crawl"?
  • "[...] it emerged into the Atlantic shipping lanes off the Carolinas by October 9.": change to "[...] on October 9".
  • I disagree with this one. The "by" was chosen to reflect the paucity of sources. It's tough to know the exact date/track when it was almost 200 years ago! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The effects of the tropical cyclone were far-reaching." A very ugly sentence in my opinion. I would advise changing it to "The tropical cyclone caused heavy damage (throughout/across) its path."
  • "[...] faced hurricane conditions for several days, [...]": could be changed to "was affected by [...]"
  • "Many towns along the Texas shoreline were inundated by storm surge, which flooded the coastal plains for many miles inland." This sentence could be restructured as follows: "The hurricane's storm surge flooded the Texan coastal plains for many miles inland, inundating many towns."
  • "[...] a water level rise of 8 ft (2.4 m) [...]": Could we simply use "storm surge" instead?
  • " Storm surge and wind damage extended into Mississippi and Alabama, but to a lesser degree of severity." Sentence could be restructured for a better reading experience.
  • "[...] which had a dramatic encounter with the hurricane [...]": "dramatic" is unencyclopaediac and should be axed.
  • The MH is well-written, and I don't have any problems about it. Good job!
  • "Haiti and the southern shores of Cuba also experienced the storm." Rewrite as "The hurricane also impacted Haiti and the southern coast of Cuba."
  • "[...] the storm produced an 8 ft (2.4 m) storm surge on Lake Pontchartrain [...]": A storm surge cannot be produced "on" a lake. Please use another term, like "along the shore of".

These are the concerns that I could identify in my first reading. If I find any more, I will post them below. -- JavaHurricane 08:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with nearly all of these suggested changes. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have struck out all of my concerns as it seems that they are being considered as "technically wrong" and are not being addressed as to why they are wrong except in the two cases where Hink has taken the pain of explaining the problems. -- JavaHurricane 15:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
JavaHurricane, I hope that you will consider reinstating your review. Hurricanehink's responses are very much correct, and if given the opportunity I'd like to address the remainder of your concerns one-by-one. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support/Image review from Hurricanehink

Thanks for the shoutout Julian. I respectfully disagree with some of Java's comments. I came here because I've been watching Julian's edits to the article, and was hoping this would go up on FAC soon. I did a review before Julian nominated it, and I found the prose engaging.

  • The first image is in the public domain, as the author died back in 1888. The track map is also public domain, as it's from the Weather Prediction Center. lastly, the map of Texas was from the 1830s (good find), so that's good to use.

Therefore, I'm happy to support the article's candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the image check, and, once again, for your prior reviews. In the interest of transparency, I have replaced the attractive but rather unhelpful Texas map with what I believe to be a simpler, more informative illustration. It is the work of a Wikimedia Commons user. Best, – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
The new image checks out, it's good to use. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane Noah

I will review the rest of this in due time, but one comment as of now..

  • Could you please add alt text to the images? NoahTalk 15:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reminder. I've added my best alt text, which admittedly may require some refinements. Looking forward to any further suggestions for improvements, – Juliancolton | Talk 16:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The hurricane crossed the northern Yucatán Peninsula on October 1, passing near Mérida and Sisal in Yucatán before proceeded west-northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico." I believe it should be before proceeding. NoahTalk 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "and continued eastward parallel to the northern U.S. Gulf Coast." Is it just me or should there be a comma after eastward? NoahTalk 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would link landfall somewhere in the article. NoahTalk 21:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed as suggested. Thanks for looking! Please let me know if you have any other concerns. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Farmers reported up to a third of their sugar cane and cotton crops lost." There should be some kind of verb before lost. NoahTalk 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "the 220-foot (67 m)" abbreviate foot. NoahTalk 17:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Drive by comment

JavaHurricane is right about at least one thing, the use of "dramatic". It's an opinion not a fact that it was dramatic, obvious WP:EDITORIALIZING. You could axe or change to "described as dramatic" or something to that effect. Furthermore, the word "dramatic" is only in the lede and not even directly cited to any source—therefore possibly constituing original research. buidhe 09:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed that phrase based on these objections. It seems to be a matter of fact that nearly capsizing twice, having your masts blown off, and losing two men overboard would count as a "dramatic" experience – and there's no evidence that "dramatic" is inherently unencyclopedic, a stock market crash being a "a sudden dramatic decline of stock prices", for instance – but I won't die on this hill. – Juliancolton | Talk 13:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Awful_wreck_of_the_steam_packet_Home.jpg is missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I don't have the particulars, as this is among Currier's more obscure works, but Schurre's "Currier & Ives prints" relays that the print was listed for sale and run as an extra in The Sun "more than two years" before Currier's breakthrough Lexington print in 1840... that would make this contemporaneous with the hurricane. The Currier and Ives current-event lithographs were generally published or offered for sale within a few days of the breaking news, to capitalize on public interest. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Lane (2018)

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC) and ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about Hurricane Lane, the 2018 pacific storm that affected Hawaii. Per Hurricanehink's recommendations and my own belief that it is high quality, I have nominated it for featured article. NoahTalk 12:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

  • "Hurricane Lane was the second wettest tropical cyclone on record in the United States, after Hurricane Harvey of the previous year, and the wettest tropical cyclone on record in Hawaii, with rainfall accumulations of 58 in (1,500 mm) at Kahūnā Falls." - Holy loaded sentence batman. A few things...one, the fact it's the #1 wettest in Hawaii is probably more notable than #2 in the United States. Save the mention of Harvey for later in the article.
  • Cut the US mention. NoahTalk 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Traversing west through a region favorable for powerful cyclones" - This isn't always true. It depends on environmental conditions. Probably better just to mention that.
  • region of atmospheric and oceanic conditions.... NoahTalk 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Landslides and flooding damage roads statewide; repairs concluded in April 2019." - Damage to damaged.
  • Done NoahTalk 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Early on August 19, Lane crossed 140°W, transitioning from the NHC's area of responsibility to the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC)" --> "Early on August 19, the Central Pacific Hurricane Center assumed responsibility of the storm after it crossed 140W."?
  • Done. NoahTalk 23:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Reconnaissance data around 09:00 UTC showed continued strengthening, though the observations had mixed signals." - Mixed signals why? All data points confirmed a powerful hurricane.
  • Looks like CB fixed this issue. NoahTalk 12:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Increased wind shear from an approaching upper-level trough imparted weakening once more by August 23, though Lane would not recover this time." - Link trough.
  • Linked. NoahTalk 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "University of Hawaii at Manoa students who were staying on the campus were advised to stay informed and download alert apps, and to store basic emergency supplies such as flashlights, first aid kits, food, and water" - Sounds like normal preparation stuff we don't care about.
  • Axed that. NoahTalk 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Hawaiian Airlines waived the change fees for tickets to, from, within, and through Hawaii from August 21–26." - Maybe simplify "to, from, within, and through" to simply "across"?
  • The problem with that is that it would make it appear that the airlines were only waving the fees for people inside the state of Hawaii rather than anyone traveling to the state from elsewhere. NoahTalk 12:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were authorized to coordinate disaster relief beginning on August 22 and continuing indefinitely." - FEMA is a singular agency. Were --> was
  • Done. NoahTalk 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Downed power lines made many evacuated residents slow to return to their homes after the storm." --> "Downed power lines prevented evacuated residents from returning home in the wake of the storm."
  • Changed. NoahTalk 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The fire destroyed 22 homes,[60] including one worth $5.5 million,[61] leaving 60 people homeless,[58] and burned 27 vehicles." --> "The fire burned 27 vehicles and also destroyed 22 homes, including one worth $5.5 million, leaving 60 people homeless"?
  • I can change it further if you feel it needs to be. I thought a semicolon would suffice since it does the job of separating thoughts much better than a comma. NoahTalk 12:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "On August 29, the Central Pacific Bank would provide natural disaster loans of $1,000–3,000 for any Maui residents who applied." - This is worded as if it would be provided on August 29 only.
  • Is that better? NoahTalk 23:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to mention the bit about Harvey and the second wettest in the U.S. in the impact section. It also needs a source since one isn't provided in the lede.
  • Added to Big Island. NoahTalk 03:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Total damage from the hurricane exceeded $42.5 million" - don't see this total cited anywhere, which of the mentioned figures are being included in this calculation?
    • AON has total economic losses at $250 million so I've added that in. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "This upper-level low would eventually develop into a subtropical cyclone along the International Dateline in early September" is cited to a tweet dated before September
  • All meteorological events for tropical cyclones are recorded in coordinated universal time (UTC). 8:16 PM (I don't whether this is EDT or HST, but it doesnt matter) on August 31 --> 00:16 on September 1. NoahTalk 16:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ...So by "early September" you mean "in the first 16 minutes of September"? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed it to simply say September 1. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • National Hurricane Center is not a work - check for others
  • I'm not seeing this in the article at all. It may have been that NHC was listed as a website with NOAA as the publisher. Since that in itself was incorrect, I have changed all to NHC as the publisher with no website parameter. NoahTalk 15:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Central Pacific Hurricane Center is also being listed using |website= when it shouldn't be, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That should be it. NoahTalk 18:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • FN35: source credits this story to newspaper staff, not AP
  • FN36: again, not seeing the AP credit at source - check for others
  • Fn38 is missing publication date, check for others
  • FN44 has a formatting error
  • Specific news programs are works, channels are not
  • Channel names should be presented using |publisher=, whereas names of programs should use |work= or one of its aliases. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: I think I fixed this one. Changed the KNON ones to publisher since it is a channel and the Hawaii News Now to work since it is a program. Also fixed a Hawaii tribune ref that was incorrect. NoahTalk 12:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN59 is missing author credit, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I think I've covered corrections to the references. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, not yet. For example I'm still seeing a whole bunch of attribution to AP where it's not present in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Removed the AP attributions where I couldn't find them. NoahTalk 03:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

MAX Red Line

Nominator(s): Truflip99 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The MAX Red Line is the second-busiest line in Portland's MAX Light Rail system and the region's only airport rail link. After commencing service nearly twenty years ago just one day before the September 11 attacks, it now carries over 20,000 riders per day between the cities of Beaverton and Portland, and Portland International Airport. Having successfully gone through GA and DYK nominations, as well as numerous read-throughs and copy edits, I feel the time is right to nominate this article for FA. Truflip99 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Placeholder comment. So far, this looks good, but I will look at this more in depth later. epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead:

  • The MAX Red Line is a light rail service in Portland, Oregon, United States, operated by TriMet as part of the MAX Light Rail system. It serves 26 stations in the cities of Beaverton and Portland, running predominantly east–west. - this has a minor contradiction. I'd rather you mention Beaverton in the first sentence. E.g. "The MAX Red Line is a light rail service within Beaverton and Portland in Oregon..."
    • I may have modeled this off of the Red Line (Sound Transit): The Red Line, formerly Central Link, is a light rail line in Seattle, Washington, United States, and part of Sound Transit's Link light rail system. It serves 16 stations in the cities of Seattle, SeaTac, and Tukwila, traveling 20 miles (32 km) between University of Washington and Angle Lake stations. -- Would it be better to reword it to: It serves 26 stations between Beaverton and Portland...?
  • it then splits to an exclusive, 5.5-mile (8.9 km) segment, - I can somewhat see what an "exclusive segment" is, but is there a better wording?
    • Done. I've omitted "exclusive".
  • It is the second-busiest service in the MAX system, carrying an average of 22,530 weekday passengers in September 2019. - Do you mean "passengers per weekday"?
    • Done
  • owing its quickness to - generally, "owing to" is unwieldy and should have a more appropriate wording like "because of".
    • Done
  • TriMet plans to further extend service west to Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport station in Hillsboro, among other improvements, by 2024. - I'd rather you mention "improvements" first. E.g. "TriMet is planning several improvements for the line, including a further extension west to Fair Complex/Hillsboro Airport station in Hillsboro by 2024." Alternatively, if the extension is the main improvement being highlighted, you can reword it that way. epicgenius (talk) 15:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

History

  • 6 to 14 million passengers between 1990 and 2000 - six to fourteen million, per MOS:NUMERAL.
    • Done
  • Was the Port of Portland the agency responsible for the expansion?
    • Indeed.
  • This project also provisioned for a future - Typically, either something is provided for, or has provisions for.
    • Done
  • In 1994, parking lots were operating at 90 percent capacity as projections fell short of demand - I'd mention the lack of demand first, before the 90 percent capacity.
    • A bit of a misunderstanding. Reworded it. Hopefully it's more clear. --Truflip99 (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Clark County, Washington, and Clackamas Town Center - this looks like it is not a serial list as it's talking about only two places. But the placement of the commas make it appear that way. Would "Clark County in Washington" work?
    • Done -- Agreed.
  • Part of the agreements authorized Bechtel to design and build a 5.5-mile-long (8.9 km) light rail extension to the airport - do you mean "A part of the agreements"? "One part"? The beginning of this sentence sounds strange.
    • Done
  • in December 1997.[22] In October 1998, - I wouldn't go with dates right next to each other in adjacent sentences
    • Done -- However, I'm not familiar with grammar rules against this, especially for prose that's written chronologically and with dates that are paramount... It would be amiss not to say when (at least in wikipedia), but at the same time, the lack of variety would be tedious.
  • $182.7 million - conversion?
    • Done
  • I'd split the first paragraph of "Funding and construction" section into two paragraphs, probably because each of these sentences is so short.
    • Done
  • 6 new rail cars - "Six new rail cars"
    • Done
  • Can you briefly expand the description on Metro (Oregon regional government) in the end of the first paragraph? I didn't know it was a regional government until I hovered over the link.
    • Done
  • owing to - "because of"
    • Done
  • limited to twenty parking spaces at Gateway Transit Center and several others along Airport Way - how were these impacted? Eliminated or added?
    • @Epicgenius: Based on my reading they were eliminated, as the sentence was referring to impacts from the line's construction. I considered commenting on that but thought it was understandable. It could definitely be clearer though.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Done -- yes, they were eliminated.
  • Bechtel began end-to-end testing in March 2001, followed by TriMet in July - So how did the end-to-end testing go about? Did each contractor have different rolling stock?
    • Done -- TriMet rolling stock
  • In 2000, TriMet named the new MAX service to the airport the Red Line to differentiate it from the established service between Hillsboro and Gresham - this sentence probably needs some reorganization or punctuation, e.g. "the 'Red Line'" (note that you would also have to put quotes around the "Blue Line").
    • Done
  • after which TriMet introduced 272–PDX Night Bus, which operates in the late night and early morning hours when the Red Line is not operating.[44][45] - I feel like this is going on a tangent from the original point of the sentence, which is that the Red Line replaced a bus service.
    • Done -- split
  • deploy two-car consists temporarily for the first time - I'd go with "temporarily deploy", because "temporarily for the first time" just sounds wrong. Or you can reword it another way. Was this temporary deployment only for holidays?
    • Done -- this was only done in that instance, until September 2005.
  • no-transfer airport connection - this is probably just another term for a "one-seat ride"

More later. epicgenius (talk) 23:09, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, more comments:

  • one-seat option from Portland International Airport to ten additional stations on the Westside MAX - I find this to be clunky. Is TriMet adding these stations as brand-new stations, or is the one-seat airport service being extended to ten existing stations?
    • Done -- they are existing; Corrected.
  • If the project is approved, construction is targeted to begin in 2021 and finish by 2024 - when is the approval expected to be?
    • Done -- I omitted that, it's already approved by TriMet. Just needs FTA funding.
  • In 2020, TriMet will temporarily close Portland International Airport station from March 29 to May 30, and again from August 30 to November 4, - What is the status of this? Have the closures started yet?
    • Done -- Updated.
  • Near Rocky Butte, the line enters a tunnel beneath the northbound lanes of the freeway and exits on the median. - I think "surfaces on the median" or "emerges on the median" would be better, since "exits" can be quite confusing.
    • Done
  • two segments of the Airport MAX extension are single track. - This has a grammatical error; use "are single-tracked" or "consist of a single track".
    • Done
  • On July 24, 2019,[72] TriMet announced the permanent closure of the Mall stations, as well as a one-year pilot closure of Kings Hill/Southwest Salmon Street station, in an effort to speed up travel times. The closures took effect on March 1, 2020.[3] - I think this can be condensed. The announcement dates are not likely to be relevant at this point, since the stations are already closed.
    • Done
  • For the "Commenced" column of the station table, can the dates be referenced?
    • I'm not sure how to do this effectively without overref'ing it. My thought was the links to the station articles would suffice. Suggestions?
      • I was asking a general question. If there are already sources in the prose section of the article, then I think it is fine. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Columbia Area Transit" is a red link. While that would otherwise be fine, I don't think we generally include red links in featured articles.
    • I can make a stub this week.
  • Its trains operate for approximately 22 hours per day from a headway of 30 minutes during the early mornings and late evenings to as frequently as 15 minutes for most of the day - I think "from a headway of..." is weird in this context. I suggest "with headways ranging from..."
    • Done
  • From Monday to Sunday, - "seven days a week" perhaps
    • Done -- Each day
  • last three trains turn into eastbound Blue Line trains - should "trains" be "trips" in this context? It would be difficult to be imagine physical trains "turning into" something.
    • Done
  • Cascade Station - is this the same as Cascades station? If so, capitalization has to be consistent.
    • They are not the same, actually
  • In 2008, Cascades station recorded an eight-fold increase in traffic, from 250 passengers per week to 2,000.[81] By 2010, this number had increased to 6,000.[82] - is there a way to combine these sentences?
    • Done -- does a semi-col work?
      • Sure. 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

These are all the comments I have for now. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I think all of my major comments have been resolved, except for the red link. But if you will make a stub for that, it should be fine. Given how long this review has turned out, I should mention that I will be claiming points in the WikiCup for this review. epicgenius (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thank you! That red link has been addressed. --Truflip99 (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Twofingered Typist

I have made some minor copy edits which I believe leaves the article meeting FA criteria. The content looks good. Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment: "Its trains operate for approximately 22 hours per day from a headway of 30 minutes during the early mornings and late evenings to as little as 15 minutes for most of the day" – 'as little as' is misleading and possibly POV. Consider removing it or replacing it with 'as frequently as'. 2c Nutez (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kew Gardens 613

Like Epicgenius, I will look at this more in-depth later. Here are a few comments

Lead:

  • The extension began construction in 1999 and was completed in just under two years due to the exclusion of federal funding and the utilization of existing public right-of-way. Maybe it is just me, but it seems to me that to a typical reader, that the fact that project was sped up by excluding federal funding might be counterintuitive. I understand the reasoning, and know that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but it seems a bit off left unexplained here.
    • Done
  • Amid strong westside ridership on the Blue Line, Red Line service was extended west to Beaverton Transit Center in 2003. You should establish that the Red Line was being extended along an already existing line.
    • Done

Background and partnership agreement:

  • In 1975, during the preliminary design phase of Interstate 205 (I-205), Portland city planners recommended... Do you know the agency or agencies the city planners were working for? If you could find that information, it would be useful to include in the article.
    • Done -- the source doesn't state which agency rather who (the city's chief transportation planner), which leads us to assume it's PBOT (or its 1975 equivalent). But since this isn't expressly stated, I went with a less-but-still ambiguous approach.
  • In 1986, regional transit plans The citation indicates that Metro was behind the plans. I would mention that to make clear to the reader that these were official plans done by a government agency.
    •  Done
  • with construction projected to begin around 2010. I just want to make sure this is right. In 1986, the plan projected the line to be completed in 2010, and later it was accelerated to open in 2001?
    • Yes, that is correct.
  • was defeated by Clark County voters in 1995. It would be helpful to mention the margin of the defeat.
    • Since this is talking about a different line, I believe it exceeds the scope of the topic and would prefer to omit it. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In late 1996, Bechtel initiated discussions This is abrupt, and I think it would be useful to explain what Bechtel is and why they solicited the proposal.
    • Done
  • The project was accelerated with the establishment of a public–private partnership, which eliminated the need for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funding I think it would be useful to note that the timeline was also sped up as an Environmental Impact Statement would not have to be completed, as the project was not using federal funds.
    • EIS was still processed however. This source (p. 82) states that lack of FTA funds was the central factor that allowed it to be fast-tracked. --Truflip99 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Never mind, found a source. --Truflip99 (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Funding and construction:

  • Additional costs raised this total to $182.7 million. What are these additional costs?
    • Done
  • Under U.S. federal regulations, the Port of Portland was able to fund only the portion of rail located within its property, with approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Was this a Passenger Facility Charge? If so, I would mention that and link to Airport improvement fee.
    • This is mentioned later in the paragraph with that link included.
  • funded by $30 million in bonds I am just being curious here, but were these bonds from a voter iniative, a local government, or somewhere else? Thanks.
    • Article isn't very detailed about this, but perhaps I can track it down...
  • over the freeways Is this referring to multiple highways? If so, what highway in addition to I-205? You should mention them instead of just saying freeways.
    • Done
  • owing to the I-205 Transitway I would change this to "owing to the already constructed I-205 Transitway" or something like that.
    • Done
  • Much of the extension was built over public right-of-way. Besides the highway right-of-way, were any other rights-of-way used for the project? If so, they should be mentioned.
    • Done

Opening and later extension:

  • Upon opening, the Red Line terminated at the Library and Galleria stations in downtown Portland, where its trains turned around at the 11th Avenue loop tracks. Had these loop tracks already been in place? Were any modifications made so this station could be a terminal for Red Line service?
    • They were laid as part of the original line in the 1980s.
  • C-Tran moved its service Make clear that C-Train is a bus operator
    • Done
  • On September 1, 2003, Red Line service was extended farther west using the existing Westside MAX tracks Upgrades are being made to extend Red Line service to Hillsboro. Was any infrastructure constructed to enable this extension of Red Line service in 2003?
    • I'm not entirely sure about this one, actually. @SJ Morg: could you possibly point me in the right direction for this? --Truflip99 (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Just to make sure we are all on the same page: The extension to Hillsboro and the 2003 extension are two entirely different things. The 2003 extension, from downtown Portland to Beaverton TC, did not require any additional infrastructure; the entire "extension" (of service) was along existing Blue Line tracks, and at Beaverton TC, the third track (on which Red Line trains began terminating and laying over upon implementation of the 2003 service extension) and connecting switches were all built in the 1990s as part of the Blue Line project. There was also already a break room for Red Line operators at the new terminus, since Beaverton was already a large TriMet transit center. No new infrastructure was needed. In contrast, the current Red Line extension plan, if approved, will require new infrastructure at both its west end (Fair Complex) and especially on its eastern section (around Gateway). SJ Morg (talk) 06:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Great. I do recall seeing a Beaverton TC rendering with three tracks in a late 1980s news article. I failed to mention this in that station's wiki article. Anyway, the answer to the question is no. Thanks, SJ Morg. --Truflip99 (talk) 06:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Future plans

  • This section needs to be expanded to provide additional information about the project, which TriMet calls the A Better Red project. The project's $200 million cost and TriMet's application for an FTA Small Starts Grant should be mentioned, in addition to the improvements to be made as part of the project, including signaling and switch upgrades and the construction of crew facilities at the new terminal. You should also note the changes at the Gateway Transit Center in more detail. This document provides a lot of important information.
    • I plan to add more detail to this once the final design is out. It would be premature to cover it in detail only to see huge changes. Some changes added.
  • You should also note the history of the plans. The plans, according to this link were first drawn up in the 2013 Westside Service Enhancement Plan. This should be mentioned, in addition to pertinent details.
    • As comment above.
  • I would also note the announcement made four days ago that the Portland Airport station would be closed for two months to accommodate work at the airport. I happened to see this in yesterday's Progressive Railroading newsletter which showed up in my inbox.
    • Done -- thank you for that! I didn't even see this announcement due to all the covid articles.

Stations

  • The closures took effect on March 1, 2020. You have a source from when the changes were announced, but you also need a source to indicate that they actually took place on March 1st.

@Truflip99: This article is exceptional, and I look forward to hearing your responses. I will look at references and images later.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kingsif

Leaving this here while I review it. If sources haven't been particularly examined, I'll do that. First note that, though the many Oregonian sources are generally inaccessible, I have had to look over some from here for a GA source review, and they turned up fine (no OR, no copyvio, it is RS) - so I won't look over these on assumption that the same standards have been met. Kingsif (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Source 2 (2 downtown...) isn't the best source for the number of stations and closures, since it doesn't say how many stations there are (there's a link in the infobox, but with a different number...), and though the link is about closures, it doesn't establish what lines nor the dates (could double up with a source saying that those stations are indeed on the red line, but if there's a single source with the info that might be better)
    • Done I've supplemented this with the rail map ref, which shows all stations but doesn't show the temporarily closed station. So I will keep that additional ref. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what source 10 (Case Study...) is being used to cite - it's used once, and that statement is in the other source attached. Unless I'm missing something?
    • Done It's used for the 6-14 mil. passengers claim. I added a page number (the doc's page number not the pdf)
  • Source 14 (Airport Max) doesn't mention the location, as far as I can see
    • Done "... plans included an accommodation for a light railtransit station near the baggage claim area." -- The arrivals hall (pick up area) and baggage claim area are next to each other; I added this to the prose. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • A few things to look at already, tell me if I'm missing something in these archive pdfs before I check the rest :) Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There's now a cite error at ref 73: Cite error: The named reference station-closures-2020 was invoked but never defined
    • Done -- I have replaced it :)
  • Could you add page numbers for Ernico, Sheri (2012). Considering and Evaluating Airport Privatization (page 36?) - I found the info, but it would help others if they have the actual book and not a searchable web version
    • Done -- thanks for the catch
  • Archiving of sources looks good. There's some books I'd have to go to a library for, however...
    • Yes. This has been my pet peeve about transit-related sources. Often, a source is only available in that locality. --Truflip99 (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Kingsif (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
      • @Truflip99: I have no issues with the prose, images, etc. While suggesting an additional source review when physical books are available to someone, I give this a provisional support (also noting that I'll be claiming this for WikiCup) Kingsif (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! --Truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Candy (Foxy Brown song)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 song by American rapper Foxy Brown for her third studio album Broken Silence. It is a dance-pop, pop, and R&B with lyrics about cunnilingus. American singer Kelis performs the hook while Brown raps the verses. The song was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews; critics have compared it to music by other artists, such as Lil' Kim. Academic scholars have analyzed its depiction of black female sexuality. Although "Candy" was often featured on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, and peaked at number 24 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Billboard chart.

This article was promoted to a GA a little over two years ago, and I further expanded and copy-edited the article last year. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this FAC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

1978 FA Cup Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

One of the finest FA Cup finals ever, serious underdogs and league-lame Ipswich took on the mighty Gooners at old Wembley and beat them. The goalscorer collapsed after scoring, assuring his place in ITFC history. This is a fresh GA but it's fully comprehensive so I can't see a reason why FAC shouldn't be considered. I look forward to receiving the comments of the community. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose - I reviewed this at GAN and tried to give it as big a shove as possible to here...and found little to complain about. I don't have the best eye for detail so may have missed stuff but I can't tell as I missed it (if I did). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you Cas, I appreciated the review then and your comments here. It's a bit of a test case, but I'd be more than happy to discover any gaps and fill them in if there are any...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 11:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi TRM, great read. Congrats on the win! There was only a little football jargon I was unsure of so have suggested wlinks. Here are my comments...

That is it for now. Let me know if you need any clarifications. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

JennyOz thanks, as ever, for your comments. I've addressed as many as I can, and there are a couple of "Really"s? in there which might need a bit more discussion. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
JennyOz just wondered if you had a chance to get back to me about the comments I addressed? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi TRM, yes, I have been mulling over this and have revisited it often hoping the penny would drop but am still (embarrassingly) confused. I have tried to explain my confusion (maybe confused my explanation!) above re Robson/tie. As for my apostrophe suggestions - maybe not "really". All else seems perfectly fine to me and am happy with the tweaks. JennyOz (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
JennyOz I think I created confusion. I've added notes above and made a change to the prose which hopefully clears it up? Thanks again for your time and comments. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
All clear! This article is a fine telling of the journey and match. I am very happy to add my support. JennyOz (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Image review

Referee

  • Not sure, but I don't like the idea of having a red-linked article name for a FA article. Would it be better to de-link? Govvy (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
    I delinked it (it was already in the infobox without linking) as it's unlikely that he will soon attract any interest in an article. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Some source comments

  • Sources look reliable.
  • Curious about external links 1 and 2 - are either of those reliable sources?
    First link expunged, but Soccerbase is usually consider RS. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Spot check 1 using source 4: quote checks out.
  • Spot check 2 using source 8a/b: first quote checks out for 8a; second claim is stated explicitly and looks good.
  • Spot check 3 using source 14a: Seems to be summarized from the available records there, so looks fine to me.
  • Spot check 4 using source 19: names listed match source.
  • Spot check 5 using source 25: Not sure the first sentence is supported by the source explicitly.
    Explicitly supported by new ref now. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

So looks good besides external links 1/2 and then my concern about spot check 5/source 25 material. Prose looks great. ceranthor 22:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


A limitation of my review to note would be that I only did spot checks for freely available sources, which are in the minority for this article unless you have access to newspaper archives. ceranthor 22:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Ceranthor thanks for taking a look at the sources, I've addressed them where appropriate and responded above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: Looks good now. Nice work. ceranthor 12:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ceranthor. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

2017 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Qualifying for the event featured both a maximum break, and the longest frame in snooker history (over two hours!). Mark Selby won his third world title, defeating four-time champion John Higgins in the final 18-15 winning £375,000. Selby was six frames behind at 10-4; the biggest deficit for a champion since the 1985 World Snooker Championship.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

I'll review this in due course, placeholder at the moment. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

1916 Texas hurricane

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The 1910s were not a kind decade to the South Texas coast. Four hurricanes made landfall along the same 18-mile (30 km) section of coast (all in Kenedy County, Texas). The 1916 Texas hurricane tells the tale of the strongest among this onslaught—a quickly moving Category 4 hurricane that dealt a heavy blow to the region, as well as to Jamaica three days earlier. I believe that this article represents the most comprehensive summary on this storm available, and look forward to addressing your comments and suggested improvements. —TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Support/Image check (figured I should review given my own FAC)

  • A Category 4 hurricane upon landfall in Texas, it was one of the strongest tropical cyclones in United States history. - eh was it? You mention that it was the strongest since 1886, but that's only 40 years. In the time since then, the US was hit by 4 C5 hurricanes, in addition to several other C4 hurricanes.
  • "No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds, and coconut and cocoa trees also sustained losses." - brilliant writing in the first half. The second half after the comma is rather lackluster - so why not split it into its own sentence? That reads stronger
  • "Railroads and other public utilities were disrupted across the region and widespread power outages left many areas in darkness." - this feels clunky. I feel like the last part about power outages could be added on after "across the region, with widespread power outages." Of course power outages leaves darkness
  • "Eight locations set 24-hour rainfall records and the deluge wrought havoc on military camps along the U.S.-Mexico border, forcing 30,000 garrisoned militiamen to evacuate." - I suggest splitting off the rainfall bit, and add Harlingen's rainfall total. That way the lead mentions winds, storm surge, and the rainfall total
  • The 1916 Texas hurricane "followed an average course for the type of August hurricanes that passes [sic] through the Yucatán Channel" - you need to attribute this quote
  • "It was the strongest hurricane in the 1916 Atlantic hurricane season." - I feel like this should be added when you mention the peak intensity, not at the beginning of the MH
  • "a vessel recorded 55-mph (89 km/h) winds" - why the dash? Ditto later w "75-mph (121 km/h)" in Texas section. Is that a thing?
  • What was the basis for the peak intensity?
  • "Weakening ensued as the storm quickly progressed farther inland through South and into West Texas" - the grammar feels weird, having South capitalized. I think you can cut "through South", so it would read "progressed farther inland and into West Texas". JMHO
  • Watch for duplicate links for Jamaica, Kingston, and Kingsville
  • "Rough surf generated by the strong winds sank and grounded vessels and lighters on the shores of Kingston Harbour" - ehhhh
  • "Another set of Southern Pacific traincars was readied at Seabrook in case additional evacuations were required." - I feel like this should be earlier, when you first mentioned the rail
  • "The coastal steamer Pilot Boy sank to the hurricane's seas" - is "to" the right word here?
  • "Damage from the hurricane was inflicted over a wide expanse of southwestern Texas" - I imagine southwestern Texas as inland. Is this proper Texasing?
  • "£21,000" - add link for currency
  • Can you find the source for the impact pics in the impact section? Maybe also the page number for the rainfall map? Otherwise, the images are good (cited, usable)

Great prose in the article. This is definitely one of the best articles WPTC has, especially for one such a long time ago. I hope none of my comments are too difficult. It shouldn't take much for me to support this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments; I've utilized most of your suggested fixes, moving around a few ideas and rephrasing a few sentences. As for the dashes, those are in the same vein as "twenty-year-old", as an example. References to "Southwestern" Texas and "Southeastern" Texas are always kind of weird given how the state funnels down to a point in its southern extremities. Southeast Texas is pretty established in the state. On the other hand, no one really refers to a "Southwestern Texas", so I've just replaced it with southern Texas, which decently reflects the region of interest. TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Happy to support cowboy, yeehaw! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments & Image review by Shearonink

All the images have valid permissions/sources. All the images have alt-text. As Hurricanehink states above, images are good. TheAustinMan re the impact photos' source/sources - so far as I can tell the sources for the impact pics are stated pretty down deep on the Commons File pages. Conditional support pending other areas pass review. 00:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Shearonink (talk)

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

  • "No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds." - This reads a little too sensationalist to me. Can we tone it down?
  • "According to the U.S. Weather Bureau" - Wikilink Weather Bureau?
  • "Air pressure bottomed out at 1006 mbar (hPa; 29.71 inHg) on the island." - Do we really care?
  • "In terms of pressure, the 1916 Texas hurricane stronger than any other landfalling tropical cyclone in the United States since 1886." - Missing a word.
  • "Communications between Kingston and other parishes were cut off for 48 hours after intense winds brought down telegraph and telephone lines,[14][25] making the dissemination of damage reports in Jamaica increasingly difficult;[26] the strongest sustained winds reached 72 mph (116 km/h) in Kingston, attended by higher gusts estimated at 85 mph (137 km/h)." - This is probably sufficient to split into two sentences.
  • "Due to the storm's initially small size and the lack of data concerning it, the Weather Bureau lamented that "the location of the center of the storm was [...] a very unsatisfactory manner"," - Comma inside quotation.
  • "Galveston residents evacuated via interurban routes and special trains for the mainland as seas began to rise, filling railcars to capacity" - Maybe rearrange this sentence so that it reads "Galveston resident evacuated for the mainland via..."?
  • "At Corpus Christi, approximately 45 mi (72 km) northeast of the storm's point of landfall" - This should be to the nearest 5, right?
  • "winds reached at least 90 mph (140 km/h)" - 90 mph should be 150 km/h given kn to km/h conversion.
    • I've left it as is. The value was originally reported in mph and not knots. So long as measurements were originally published in mph (as was the case with some of the other measurements), they were converted directly to km/h without backtracking to knots first. The HURDAT metadata (ref name "Metadata") lists this as 78 knots. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Thunderstorms and squalls began affecting the city on the morning of August 18" - Link squalls
  • "preceding the onset of hurricane-force winds that evening; the winds diminished to light winds by the following evening." - Can we reword this to avoid repetition with both "winds" and "evening"?
  • "Port O'Connor and surrounding locales were impacted by 75-mph (121 km/h) winds" - Rounding and why is it hyphenated?
  • "located 15 mi (24 km) south of Kingsville" - rounding?
    • Not sure why rounding would be necessary given that it is not an approximation. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Farther north in Galveston, the hurricane produced 50 mph (80 km/h)" - 50 mph is 85 km/h based on kn to km/h conversion.
  • "while 68-mph (109 km/h) winds swept through San Antonio." - rounding and hyphen again?
    • I'm a little confused as to why rounding would be necessary here. The value appears as reported. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "(equivalent to $42 million in 2019)." - Says who?

Overall, a very well written and read article with only a few complaints from me.

What is Wiki.RIP There is a free information resource on the Internet. It is open to any user. Wiki is a library that is public and multilingual.

The basis of this page is on Wikipedia. Text licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License..

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. wiki.rip is an independent company that is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation).

E-mail: wiki@wiki.rip
WIKI OPPORTUNITIES
Privacy Policy      Terms of Use      Disclaimer