Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Erika (1997)
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:38, 3 February 2007.
After working on this article a lot, I think it's up to par for featured status. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's with the nonexistent category?--Rmky87 03:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was added because while this article was being created, it was proposed to create more categories and eliminate others. As that never happened, I'll remove it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I also feel it meet the featured article criteria. Jay32183 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have a problem with the wording of sentence in the "Storm history" section: "The feature was erroneous, though, as visible satellite imagery revealed a partially exposed center from the convection." Caknuck 01:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak object, pending the text tagged with the {{explain}} is fixed, and the s from the Impact section are fixed as well. Titoxd(?!?) 00:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Support now. Titoxd(?!?) 05:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Great work, definite GA material, but I just don't think the topic allows for the depth of information that an FA should represent.--Mus Musculus 04:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]- How can it be expanded? Topic-based opposition is not actionable, per WP:WIAFA. Titoxd(?!?) 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're right. What I'm trying to convey is that I think FA's should be topics on which more can be written. But I realize now that this isn't the place to try to change the standard. --Mus Musculus 04:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How can it be expanded? Topic-based opposition is not actionable, per WP:WIAFA. Titoxd(?!?) 04:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article is comprehensive and covers the topic well. I also feel that it meets featured criteria. Hello32020 18:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.