Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Claudette (2003)

Hurricane Claudette (2003)

Self-nom, on behalf of the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I worked on this, and I feel it is ready to become the next Tropical Cyclone related Featured Article. I feel it is comprehensive, well written, and, in all, ready. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just look at the article and you'll know why I supported it! Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You Tropical Cyclone Wikiprojecters are getting very good at this FA-standard article malarkey... Batmanand | Talk 22:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support though not the most notable hurricane, this should be one of our most notable articles since it is so good. My only issue is that the infobox bites a bit into the storm history section, but I don't think that's a serious problem. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I shortened it a bit, but I'm not sure how to remove the "bite". I suppose it isn't too serious of a problem. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, very well-done article. -- RattleMan 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object This could be the 10th featured hurricane-related article, how many do you plan on getting featured? Fine Support - a couple of minor things though, 236 million cubic feet needs a conversion and nbsp;, and there should be a comma following states following cities (like a comma after High Island, Texas). AndyZ _t 01:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. OK, I got the metrication for cubic feet and added a comma after High Island, Texas for the TS warnings. What is nbsp; though? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "nbsp;" is an HTML command for a non-breaking space. It prevents something attached to it from wrapping to the next line if it's at the very end. -- RattleMan 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh. Where is it needed? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Although I've never used it before, I think I know where it goes; between the conversions, like "236 million cubic units" (use edit to check the code). Looks messy, but I think that's it. Try resizing your browser window, and notice that the entire "236 million cubic units" moves to the next line instead of just one word (say, "units") moving to the next line. -- RattleMan 01:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. It only goes right before abbreviations, so there's no need to stick it in "236 million cubic units", but you would use it for "236 million ft³". --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, you'll see that our evil plot is to overwhelm Wikipedia with tropical cyclone featured articles. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 01:57 UTC
Comment. I'd like to see a longer lead before I support. I'm not sure how it could be expanded, but it seems too short. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 01:57 UTC
- For a storm that killed only one and caused only minimal damage along its path, anything more in the lead would become redundant. Also, Irene was featured with a shorter lead. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I added a bit more to the lead. I'm not sure how much more could be added. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support. Good enough for me now. —Cuivi é nen^T|C, Monday, 22 May 2006 @ 12:08 UTC
Support. Everyking 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. On the lead a bit more detail on the storm history would work (thats the one thing Irene's has which Claudette doesn't).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, added a bit more storm history. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "landfall" in the lead should be wikilinked.--ppm 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I got that. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've gone over the article with a fine comb and made sure there weren't any glaring errors. AndyZ: You may want to read the bold text near the top of WP:WPTC... Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, I'm going to change my vote to object just to stop you! (no just kidding) AndyZ _t 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments Well written article, but I have more comments before supporting:
- "There, residents remained calm during the evacuation, and peacefully taped up window" -- the reference provided suggested that they did NOT tape up windows. The sentence is somewhat POV sounding, anyway.
  - I removed "peacefully taped up windows". No real need. Hurricanehink (talk)
- "to an area of flower growth" in the section on Aftermath. Is flower growth a technical term, or merely growth of flowers?
- "Also, the storm was indirectly responsible for a death when a tree fell on a person in the cleanup of the storm" -- I actually could not find this info from the reference provided. It talks about one direct death due to tree falling, though.
  - Sort of changed it, though I'm not good with synonyms. Hurricanehink (talk)
  - It was in the Tropical cyclone report. I clarified the statement. Hurricanehink (talk)
- In general, a light copyedit might be useful. I am not sure, but phrases like "By 2 months later, over 15,000 " (in aftermath) sound a bit suspect style wise.

--ppm 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I fixed that. Can someone else copyedit it? I need an outside eye. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I did some copyediting, and fixed a few things. I'm confused at the inclusion of "This report would suggest the storm was a low-end Category 2 hurricane", when in fact a 95.5mph wind (even if it was sustained) is not a true Cat 2 (which begins at 96mph). Add to that that the report was unofficial and I fail to see the purpose of the sentence. I'll keep looking for wording problems, but this is looking really good. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 15:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, that's supposed to be 96.6 mph in Seadrift. Now it shows the possibility for Cat. 2. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- nice article. I would just request the editors to go through the references once, as some inconsistencies surfaced earlier.--ppm 19:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]