Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Cindy (2005)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Cindy (2005)

[edit]

Hurricane Cindy (2005) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 10 September 2024, 15:36 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Cindy, the first of several hurricanes to hit the United States during the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Cindy caused a fair amount of damage, including to the Atlanta Motor Speedway from a tornado, as well as the largest power outage for Entergy, the energy company responsible for Louisiana/Mississippi region. Of course, this whole area would be devastated by Hurricane Katrina just a month and a half later. As a weird bit of foreshadowing, there were five parishes in Louisiana that were declared disaster areas on August 23... the same day that Hurricane Katrina formed. Cindy wasn't all that bad compared to the later storms, but it was still significant enough to warrant having an article.

Thanks to edits from Zzzs (talk · contribs) has helped make sure that the article is well-polished, so I'd like to invite that user to co-nominate this article for FAC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to comment that I accept the invitation. ZZZ'S 23:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support from Dylan620

[edit]

Great to see another tropical cyclone at FAC! I have an active FLC on similar subject matter, so it only feels appropriate to review this. Ping me if I haven't added anything to this space within the next week. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • and was significant enough in five Louisiana parishes to be declared a federal disaster area → "and was significant enough for five Louisiana parishes to be declared federal disaster areas" (the current wording implies that the overall damage itself was a federal disaster area, which I'm fairly certain isn't what was intended)
  • the storm organized into an eye feature → "the storm developed an eye feature" (the current wording implies that the storm became a giant eye, and the emergence of an eye is itself an indicator of increased organization)
  • The extratropical storm restrengthened slightly – Isn't "extratropical storm", at least in the context of post-transition former TCs, reserved for systems of an intensity equivalent to at least TS force? Since Cindy's winds in its extratropical stage never went any higher than 30 kts, I would suggest replacing "storm" with "low" or "cyclone".
  • In the second sentence of §Preparations, I would recommend adding "later" after "NHC", to clarify that the US warnings were not issued simultaneously with the Mexico warnings.
  • In north Atlanta – My initial instinct was that "north" should be capitalized, but North Atlanta is a disambiguation page that provides a couple possibilities for what "North Atlanta" could be. Maybe either this should be clarified, or "north" rephrased as "northern"?
  • In Arlington in northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses → "In northern Virginia, floodwaters closed roads and businesses in Arlington" (a blatant nitpick, but this reads more smoothly imo)
  • In Pennsylvania, rains from the storm led to flash floods in Lebanon and Lancaster counties – I would swap out "led to" for something like "generated" or "produced", since the phrase "leading to" is used later in this same sentence.
  • In Lebanon, the floods forced 22 homes to evacuate. – The town or the county?
  • the large tornado caused heavy damage – I would remove mention of the twister's size from this sentence, since it's already mentioned in the sentence immediately prior.
That's about it, I think. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the review Dylan620 (talk · contribs)! Lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my comments so quickly Hurricanehink! I'm pleased with the changes and I'm happy to support now. This article is a great piece of work. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BP!

[edit]

I kinda figured it out I'd review this since I possibly need more detailed review somehow for my FAC also.

Upon first glance. Note: I'm not expert this topic, including its source reliability.

  • Be consistent to the referencing. For example there was citation like "[15][1]", it should be arranged properly.
    Done --ZZZ'S 22:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls bundle the referencing also if it was cited already 4 or more sources. It looks like you ended up ref bombing it.

More to come 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔)

*", injuring a man who was flung out of the building." I'm not quite sure about this, but could you perhaps reword this if you can?

  • What do you mean in context of Hurricane Cindy? Like in ref 22, saying "Sources for fatalities?" I'm not sure how that would work, since each URL needs its own reference (with different titles, dates, accessdates, whatnot). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink just letting you know that I renominated my FaC just incase you may be able to review it again. Thanks! 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from wtfiv

[edit]
Meteorological History
[edit]

I very much enjoyed reading this article, and appreciated the opportunity to look over some of the sources too. My comments are mainly minor stylistic ones.

  • Paragraph 1
  • First sentence starts with plural "origins" but references the singular "tropical wave". Should it be origin, or are you pointing toward subcomponents within the "tropical wave"?
I believe it is referring to the subcomponents within the tropical wave, so I won't change it. --ZZZ'S 22:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jamaica, which Consider using a gerund, "becoming more" without the "which", as the "which" falsely looks like a descriptor of Jamaica.
Reworded. --ZZZ'S 22:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
  • NHC assessed, assessed looks like a verb at first, but "moved" is the verb. If NHC accessed is meant to be an adjective, it might need a hyphen. But is NHC assessed needed here? If it's a verb, it doesn't make sense in the context of "moved", which is an empirical action. If an adjective, the NHC is already implicated in the assessment. Or does this sentence mean something like, "As Cindy moved ashore the NHC assessed it as..., but the agency upgraded..."?
I believe assessed is related to the intensity of the tropical cyclone. I tried to rephrase it to make it clearer. Let me know what you think. --ZZZ'S 03:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (minor suggestion) Consider changing ...depression, and Cindy merged... "depression and merged..." as Cindy is already the topic from the previous sentence.
Done. --ZZZ'S 22:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations
[edit]
  • (minor suggestion) Consider moving the clause Offshore in the open Gulf of Mexico to follow "six oil rigs", as it is more a description of the rigs than the oil companies, which the clause is currently adjacent to.
Moved to the end of the sentence instead. Will that be alright? --ZZZ'S 22:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Impact
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1
  • The sentence starting The energy company is a little unclear. It says "largest ever", but then appears to negate this when discussing Katrina.
Clarified. --ZZZ'S 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding "to date" after power outage. Perhaps end clause with a period, and begin a new sentence. Then the new sentence could focus on the previous high-outage hurricane, Georges, and the one to come, Katrina.
Done. --ZZZ'S 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2
  • as strong winds caused roofing damage, consider replacing "as" with "and" or "while": (Though context quickly clarifies, in my first pass, "as" initially read like it was functioning in its explanatory role as a synonym of "because")
Replaced with "and." --ZZZ'S 03:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear on a point made here. Paragraph 1 made it sounds like George was second-place to Cindy. But this paragraph states that the second-most outage causing Hurricane was Betsy. Could this be clarified?
  • The second-most outage was about the power company's history, which includes more than just Louisiana. That's why it was the state's largest blackout since Betsy, even further back than Georges in 1998, which makes sense since Georges didn't directly strike Louisiana. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentences on declaration of emergency and Katrina
  • (minor suggestion) The last two sentences- coincidence of Bush's declaration of state of emergency and the emergence of Katrina is fascinating, but the way it is written, it almost seems to imply that there may be a connection between the declaration and the development. Is there a way to soften this? Maybe something like rewording the last sentence to reading "During this time, another tropical depression was developing that would later become..."
Reworded it differently. What do you think? --ZZZ'S 03:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these sentences fit here? I can see the logic. It emphasizes the extent of the damage to the five parishes. The narrative is taking place in July, then jumps to late August. Is there a place near the end where the aftermath can be discussed?
  • If this is moved, the mention of Katrina in Paragraph 1 as the larger cause of outages could be put in the same paragraph as the mention of Katrina here. Moving this later may help readers get a better context of how Cindy relates to Katrina. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3
  • Last sentence is related to previous point. Discussion of Dennis seems out of the timeline. It is a bit more confusing because the previous paragraph discusses Katrina, but now it sounds like Dennis will be intervening before Katrina. Can this possibly be clarified? (Again, maybe collecting aftermath issues into paragraphs near the end.)
  • Paragraph 4- No suggestions
Tornado outbreak
[edit]
  • Paragraph 1- No suggestions
  • Paragraph 2
  • is the "already" in already measuring needed?
No. Removed. --ZZZ'S 22:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 3-
  • The use of Fuji nomenclature is a bit unclear. In paragraph 2, it is defined adjectivally, as a measure of tornado intensity, but here it is used as a noun. This can make Paragraph 3 a bit confusing for a reader, requiring a double take to find what F0 means in the previous paragraph. Here's two possible suggestions:
  • Consider making all subsequent mentions of the Fujita number consistently adjectival. (e.g., F0 tornado, "F2 tornado") This would possibly be simpler. For example, paragraph 4 uses the Fuji number consistently as an adjective, which makes it clear.
  • Alternatively, Start off by making F2 on the front side of the first description, saying that the tornado was an F2 on the Fujita scale and define it. That way, readers are ready for tornados to be called by their Fujita number alone.
  • Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6-No suggestions, but comment: The use of Fuji numbers are clear in these, as they are used either as adjectives or as explicit descriptions of tornados or events.
  • General comment: My own feeling is that it would be good to see the aftermath items, such as following storms and Cindy's place in them near the end, after the main narrative has been told. This is not critical, but would clear up the timeline slightly and clarify the various relations between Cindy, Dennis, and Katrina. Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There wasn't much aftermath for Cindy specifically. It was more of a prologue to Dennis and Katrina, and the longest lasting aspect of the storm was the tornado damage to the Speedway. I took that note and added the mentioning of Denis and Katrina earlier in the narrative, saying that Cindy was the first of six storms in 2005 to produce hurricane force winds in the US. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. I'll take another overall look when you are ready and all the comments have been addressed. Please ping me when you're done. I'll try to check in now and then, but I don't have this on my watchlist. Wtfiv (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, after reading some of the earlier comments about the timeline, I agree, an aftermath section would be useful, and there is enough to put there. Please let me know what you think, Wtfiv (talk · contribs). Thanks again for the review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you could've definitely pulled it off if you didn't put an aftermath in, but I also think an aftermath would be even stronger. Cindy sounds like the prelude to a season of storms culminating in Katrina. My own feeling is that it would also help put the coincidence of the date Bush's call for a state of emergency for Cindy and the rise of Katrina in context and be a good ending for the article as it would define more clearly why Cindy is significant. Wtfiv (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, I like it more with the aftermath, thanks for that suggestion. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you decided to do it, I think the afterward really improves it and puts more emphasis on its notability. I feel this definitively address the 2005 discussion on the articles talk page that I just looked at, which debated whether the hurricane is notable. Though I think you make a good case in the text itself, the Aftermath section makes it explicit: it is important as the first hurricane of the season and the first to cause the cumulative damage resulting in the declaration of a state of emergency just before Katrina formed.

Support. Wtfiv (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Hurricane_Cindy_(2005)/archive1&oldid=1244653320"