This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
Is Walaka a genuine native-Hawaiian word or merely a transcription of the English name Walter？
The name Walter is composed of two Germanic roots：Wald-“ruler，power”and -her“army”.
103.250.13.140 (talk) 07:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it were not an actual Hawaiian word, it would not have been used. There are examples of names that were taken off of the naming lists due to them not being actual Hawaiian words. FigfiresSend me a message!00:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a total of 32 references. Of those 32, only 7 are not from the U.S. Government. Multiple discussions have surrounded the use of U.S. Government, specifically NOAA, sources and they are allowed. However, the firm consensus is that they are primary sources are not secondary reliable sources. Based on this consensus, this article, currently classified as a featured article, only has seven, reliable secondary sources. The entire article is 29,000 bytes. The entire Meteorological history section is 17,600 bytes & most importantly, the entire section has 0 reliable secondary sources. Every source in the section is a primary source. This needs to be addressed fairly quickly. Currently, I do not believe this passes the criteria to be a featured article, due to a lack of reliable secondary sources for over half the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Feel free to open a FAR on this and other articles as you feel necessary. Such scholarly literature on storms either doesn't exist or is written by the same people who write the advisories and tropical cyclone reports and would be redundant to include here. This hasn't ever been an issue in the past for tropical cyclones considering the NHC/CPHC is the only entity that writes official, detailed discussions and reports for the eastern/central Pacific, but if you feel this an issue, simply open a FAR and let others chime in on that. NoahTalk00:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: This very same thing was mentioned at a different FAC here and the article still passed the featured article candidacy. Take note that the coordinator stated Primary sources are not disallowed, per WP:PRIMARY. What is disallowed is original research from primary sources. Nor is there anything in the FAC criteria that require a certain number of words in a candidate article - all that is required is that an article be comprehensive and cover all the information covered in the sources. I haven't read the article to tell if either of these situations apply - and the oppose does not touch on that either. If this article does original research from primary sources or neglects some area that's covered by sources - the reviewer needs to substantiate that. If reviewers want to change the criteria to exclude any use of primary sources or to require some minimum size, that's a discussion for another location, not on an individual nomination. The gist is that an article simply needs to be comprehensive and not have original research. You mention multiple discussions took place but do not link them or say how they apply to tropical cyclone met histories. The one that I have seen taken place had to do with adding damage totals and making lists up where no one source stated every damage amount, which was WP:SYNTH. NoahTalk02:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: That is true. The multiple discussions I reference were related with NOAA damage totals, not tropical cyclones specifically. But, that isn’t the full point. For me, it is that over half the article (a section of 17.6k bytes on a 29k byte article) has 0 non-NOAA sources, aka only primary sources. I’m not opposed at all to having so many NOAA sources. I’m all for it, as I was with those NOAA-damage total discussions. But the vote to make the article a featured article took place 3 years ago. I’m glad the FAR did mention the lack of non-secondary sources. In 2023 however, I do not think featured articles can have a section, let alone half the article, without any reliable secondary sources. Those damage-related discussions confirmed that NOAA is a primary source for meteorological information. That is the main reason I don’t think it should be a featured article anymore and it is that reason only. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: The onus is on you as the reviewer to present examples that such reliable secondary sources covering the same or providing additional, relevant information do exist. If they do not, then your point is moot. NoahTalk02:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: I’m confused on what you mean by it is my job to find the sources? From what you just said, here is what I’m hearing: I, as the reviewer bringing the point up, need to locate reliable secondary sources for the information, so I can bring it to a discussion, to show reliable secondary sources exist and since they aren’t cited in the article at the time of that discussion, the article should not be a featured article? That doesn’t seem to make sense. Maybe you could explain what you mean. From what I understand, I (as the reviewer) located issues with the article (50%+ without a secondary source) and then I let the editors of the article and talk page watchers know that I think that is a problem. But from what you are saying, since I located the problem, to be able to say it shouldn’t be a featured article, I need to locate the sources, and then take a vote to say it isn’t a featured article? Very confused right now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: You have to present examples that such reliable secondary sources exist that can provide material that can be added to the met history or source existing material. If they don't exist, the issue you mention is not actionable and thus the status quo of featured article remains. Right now, it's the same as claiming there are severe grammar issues in an article and providing no examples of such issues and possible ways to fix it. As I said, the onus is on you to make the case that such sources are out there. I have yet to see any relevant met history ones when I search through scholarly literature. WP:PRIMARY allows entire passages to be based upon primary sources if it is done cautiously and avoids WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Literally, the only thing not allowed is basing the whole article on primary sources. NoahTalk03:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention WP:PRIMARY, number 5 of it says, Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. I would tend to say that when a single section, which is just over 60% of the article, is all primary sources, that it would arguably fall into that part of WP:PRIMARY. Also, can you link a discussion for the status quo saying that featured articles can have large passages of primary sources? I still don’t see any reason that I have to locate WP:RS, just to say that it shouldn’t be a featured article. That almost feels like I need to fix the problem to claim there is a problem (finding the sources that need to be cited in the article, just to say they aren’t cited in the article). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im saying the status quo for this specific article's status remains if your concern can't be addressed. It doesn't matter what status it is. If your concern is unable to be addressed, then it would remain at its current status. Please read the featured article criteria where it simply says reliable sources are needed. It does not say that there can't be primary sources or make any mention as to how much can or can't come from primary sources. The issue with primary sources is that many of them are not independent sources and can be easily misused. If the sources are independent, then there isn't really an issue. If you are unwilling to provide examples of reliable secondary sources that exist in order to substantiate your concern in a manner where it can be addressed, I will consider your concern to be unactionable and make no further attempt to fix it considering I haven't been able to find reliable secondary sources for met history. If you really think this is an issue, then it's something that shouldn't be addressed here considering every TC article's met section is based primarily upon RSMC primary sources. If it has come to the point where people believe that this should preclude an article from becoming a GA or a FA, then a mass-FAR and mass-GAR would be in order. NoahTalk03:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question of notability affects whether the storm has an article or not. As it was a Category 5 hurricane in a busy season, at the very least the storm deserves an article. And since the whole article isn't solely based on a single source, I personally stand by my previous support that this should remain a featured article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here from WT:FAR and skimmed through the discussion above. @WeatherWriter: are there reliable, high-quality secondary sources that are not used in the article as inline citations, or should be used to replace some of the primary sources as they are of a higher quality? If not, then I think the use of primary sources is OK in this instance. If so, then progress should be made to evaluate the sources you found and add them to the artice. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
