Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/1951 Hawaii cyclone"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Yellow Evan
(cmt)
imported>Orlady
(looks OK to me)
Line 30: Line 30:
 
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Sorry but the sources are very obscure, I think you are going to have to add a note to the article explaining how you derived this information from those statistics. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)     
 
* [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] Sorry but the sources are very obscure, I think you are going to have to add a note to the article explaining how you derived this information from those statistics. [[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]] ([[User talk:Gatoclass|talk]]) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)     
 
:*What makes them so obscure? This has never been a problem for other hurricane articles for DYK that use similar info. [[User:Yellow Evan|Y]][[User talk:Yellow Evan|E]] [[2014 PHS|<font color="#66666"><sup>Pacific</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Yellow Evan|<sup>Hurricane</sup></font>]] 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 
:*What makes them so obscure? This has never been a problem for other hurricane articles for DYK that use similar info. [[User:Yellow Evan|Y]][[User talk:Yellow Evan|E]] [[2014 PHS|<font color="#66666"><sup>Pacific</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Yellow Evan|<sup>Hurricane</sup></font>]] 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 +
::*The sourcing looks sufficient to me. Between the storm track maps, the tables, and the text in source #1, the content of the article seems to be supported. It seems to me that this is a bit like some sports-related articles that rely heavily on statistics charts. I can't interpret all of the sources here, but the article is consistent with those sources that I can interpret. --[[User:Orlady|Orlady]] ([[User talk:Orlady|talk]]) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 18:41, 1 July 2014

1951 Hawaii cyclone

  • Comment: Going to review another DYK, even though I don't have to QPQ. (Start training :P)

Moved to mainspace by CycloneIsaac (talk). Self nominated at 21:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

  • Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. I'm wondering, though, where you got all that information in the first paragraph under Meteorological history – are you interpreting the statistical charts in footnotes 2 and 3? Per DYK rules, you need to add a cite after the sentences describing the second and third landfalls. Also, I suggest adding "in 1951" to the hook to place it in context. No QPQ needed for under-5 DYKs nominator. Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I added a few more cites to footnotes 2 and 3 for the other two landfalls. I am proposing an alt hook, with your suggestion.
ALT 1:...that in 1951, a cyclone made landfall in Hawaii three times?
CycloneIsaac (Talk) 20:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you. What about my question about the statistical data? Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • IBTRACS and best track are statistical data, and I was interpreting it.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 23:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol voting keep.svg OK. The hook cites are both online, but I have to AGF your interpretations of the data. ALT1 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol possible vote.svg Sorry but the sources are very obscure, I think you are going to have to add a note to the article explaining how you derived this information from those statistics. Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • What makes them so obscure? This has never been a problem for other hurricane articles for DYK that use similar info. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The sourcing looks sufficient to me. Between the storm track maps, the tables, and the text in source #1, the content of the article seems to be supported. It seems to me that this is a bit like some sports-related articles that rely heavily on statistics charts. I can't interpret all of the sources here, but the article is consistent with those sources that I can interpret. --Orlady (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)