Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Effects of Hurricane Georges in Cuba/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:11, 6 October 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review by NuclearWarfare
- For anyone who doesn't know how to navigate NOAA, finding the source for File:Hurricane Georges 24 sept 1998 1945Z.jpg might be a bit difficult. Do you think you could keep the source information there current and also add a deeplink?
- Same thing with File:Hurricane Georges 25 sept 1998 1935Z.jpg as with the above image.
- All else looks good.
- Alt text looks good.
- NW (Talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea how to work the system to get those images, they were all gotten by a now retired user. According to the recent FAC for Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana those images were fine. Also, thanks for the images review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed it and replaced it with a much more reliable source Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think the lead should be rewritten to focus on the storm's effects on Cuba; the first paragraph is currently about its history elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better now? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Support based on a brief read-through of the rest of the article - I'll revisit later to evaluate the page more closely. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.