Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/Hurricane Katrina

Hurricane Katrina

Archived discussion. Current status: {{FA-Class}}

The katrina article has several problems, as I outlined in the talk page there. The biggest problem is that the article is really long, yet the only synopsis is the intro which is not sufficient, yet the intro needs to be shortened per WP:LEAD (which I strongly agree with). So IMO it needs a separate synopsis section; something we have no precedent for (for storm articles, anyway). Jdorje 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is now readable, to say the least, thanks to the efforts by Dr. Cash. Old urls were purged, POV removed, and overall, the article now has structure. Should we call it an A now? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. It still has some sections in need of expansion and some citations needed, but it is within .1 point of being an A class article. Hurricanehink 03:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. Mostly what it needs is Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi to be summarized back into the article, and look for a few references that are still missing. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Basically, yea. Hurricanehink 03:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - The problem is, that article is horrible. Iff we do decide to make a TCCOTW, this would definitely warrant it. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that, as it is currently, it is A class. It might not be FA status, but this has more than any other tropical cyclone article, good use of pictures, and good organization. I vote yes on A class. Hurricanehink 21:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina's article finally has a half-decent impact section now. It still has several problems though. There is repetition between the lead of the impact and the death toll section (remove the death toll bit?). The aftermath section just feels too long and has other problems, for example, parts of it are written as if Katrina had only just occured. I think it is A-class now; the question is should we submit it to Peer Review now, or try to give the aftermath some work first?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A class is fine. More sourcing, unfortunately, is needed. There are quite a few sections without a source. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a billion citation requests into it; hopefully others will help. The other side is wielding the editorial axe of course - 75k is probably too long.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the requests. Yea, 75 kb is probably just a bit too long for a storm like this. 50-60 range would be ideal. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think that the 75 KB are necessary. Usually, an article shouldn't be that long, but Katrina doesn't fit in the "usually" category. However, if something needs to be cut, it's the non-government orgs section. It's irrelevant and an advertising magnet, so I've never liked it to begin with. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the NGO section. Also there's that (unreferenced) AmeriCorps section; that seems wrong in the main article, but is it a government organization or a NGO (I can't make up my mind), that matters to where it goes in the subarticle. On the articles length - take out the references and the article more like 50-60 KB. I've bumped it to A-class and once most of the cites are there I think we should start a PR to get the final tweaking done before the FAC.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now featured.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]