Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane David/archive1

Hurricane David

Well-written, long-edited article that I believe, after slow, steady improvements, meets FAC. CrazyC83 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose. Doesn't use cite.php, and is not comprehensive enough imo regarding preparations. I refuse to believe there is so little information on preparations for a Cat 2 hurricane in the U.S. – Ch acor 17:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lead and "Storm History" sections have no citations at all; the statements in the lead and the numbers in "Storm History" should certainly be sourced. For a hurricane which killed 2,000+ people in the Dominican Republic and only 68 elsewhere, there is almost no information on the impact and aftermath of the hurricane on that nation. Shouldn't a nation which suffered such tremendous casualities be mentioned in the "Aftermath" section? The most info is about the US, which had only 5 deaths and sufferend only one-fifth of the total monetary loss caused by David. In general, the "Aftermath" section should definitely be expanded to, if possible, look at aspects of the hurricane such as clean-up efforts and the rebuilding of homes. (Another example for this section: If 70% of the Dominican Republic's crops were destroyed, what happened? Was there a famine? Did the economy suffer? Did the nation have to import crops? Was financial aid needed from other nations?) Finally, I like all of the images, but I think at least one image of actual damage- as opposed to a bunch of radar displays- would be a big improvement. Overall, the article is excellent, but I don't think it's up to FA standards yet. -- Kicking222 17:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Re. images - there used to be three, all deleted for copyvio. – Ch acor 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Though I was the person who put most of the content there, I don't think it's FA status. Per Chacor, there's not enough info on preparations, and per above there should be more on Dominica or Dominican Republic. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the same reasons as above. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Haphazard citations, and also not formatted with {{cite web}} et al, to start. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. The article doesn't list many references such as other hurricane articles, including Hurricane Gloria or Hurricane Mitch. You should locate some more sources for the unsupported claims. Never Mystic (t c) 21:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, and primarally no {{cite web}}, etc., reference tags. Hello32020 20:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]