Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Claudette (2003)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC) [1].
- Notified: Hurricanehink, CrazyC83, WP Mexico, WP Weather, WP USA, formally noticed in May 2023, but discussion of issues dates back to 2021
I don't believe that this article, which is the now the fifth-oldest at WP:URFA/2020A that hasn't been accounted for, meets the current FA criteria. I'm not convinced that several of the sources used (earthlink.net, stormcarib, or OilVoices) are high-quality RS as required by the modern criteria. What is also concerning to me is the sourcing used - while admittedly there is not a whole lot in secondary literature out there for this storm, there are several pieces noted on the article's talk page. The earthlink.net source ("Texas Weather Information") has a date in the citation of 2006 although this webpage was archived as early as 2004 and appears to be contemporary weather notes from July 2003. If that is the case, then it looks like none of the sources post-date 2003, the year in which the storm occurred. Given this, and the fact that there is at least some extent of later discussion of this storm, I don't think this meets the FA sourcing expectations. Hog Farm Talk 20:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate this Hog Farm (talk · contribs), this should have been worked on a long time ago, and to be honest I probably have a few other articles that need work. I have expanded the article, first the met history, and now I'm going to work on the impacts. I'll keep at it until it's up to 2025 standards! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: I have expanded on the article, and gotten rid of the Stormcarib references. Please let me know if it's on the right direction. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hurricanehink: - thanks for working on this! Is OilVoice a high-quality RS? I see some stuff from the 2009 Monthly Weather Review article has been incorporated - do you think any of the other (admittedly somewhat limited) post-2003 sourcing on the article's talk page is useful? It just seems odd to me to only have sourcing from within a year of an event, but that is how things are for many of our weather articles. Hog Farm talk 16:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: - good question, I changed it to different contemporary sources that appear more reliable. And as for sourcing being within a year of the event, there are a few exceptions: ref 39 (a compilation of various Texas storms), ref 47 (an analysis of the inland effects in Texas), and ref 10 (a journal paper about Claudette's strengthening). There aren't going to be too many long-term reports about a modest hurricane (especially compared to some of the beasts that have happened since then). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hurricanehink: - thanks for working on this! Is OilVoice a high-quality RS? I see some stuff from the 2009 Monthly Weather Review article has been incorporated - do you think any of the other (admittedly somewhat limited) post-2003 sourcing on the article's talk page is useful? It just seems odd to me to only have sourcing from within a year of an event, but that is how things are for many of our weather articles. Hog Farm talk 16:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hog Farm: I have expanded on the article, and gotten rid of the Stormcarib references. Please let me know if it's on the right direction. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there no damage estimates available for Mexico? Hog Farm talk 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "during which it damaged several buildings at a damaged a few buildings at a campsight." - something has gone wrong grammatically with this. Hog Farm talk 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is greatly improved. Hog Farm talk 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The bit about the campsight is totally my bad, I just added that in. I hopefully fixed it. As for Mexican damage totals, either it was too minor to quantify, there aren't any surviving documents, or else extremely difficult to find. I tried a variety of searches (in Spanish), some of which also included other storms that hit Mexico that season. I wrote about a Mexican storm in 2005, and by that time there is a high quality document with a lot of info and damage totals... only there's no such document for 2003. So I'm stumped about the Mexican damage total. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can close w/o FARC here. Hog Farm talk 01:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Close per HF. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.