Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Juan
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 22:34, 10 January 2007.
Self-nomination. I used the peer review advice to get extensive details on this storm. I think it meets FA criteria now. Feel free to leave comments. CrazyC83 01:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Are there any more specifics? For example, how many, if any, buildings/houses were destroyed? Was there any flooding? How many trees were downed - is there an estimate? A grammar note: phrases in parenthesis should be avoided. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No numbers could be found. Minor flooding. CrazyC83 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No flooding was mentioned in the article, JTLYK. Conditional support regarding any info on houses or buildings' status in Halifax. The parentheses still need fixing. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Estimates found and added. Also added more on power issues. CrazyC83 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Support now. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Estimates found and added. Also added more on power issues. CrazyC83 02:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No flooding was mentioned in the article, JTLYK. Conditional support regarding any info on houses or buildings' status in Halifax. The parentheses still need fixing. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No numbers could be found. Minor flooding. CrazyC83 02:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict twice) Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 02:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object, for now. The issue is minimal, but the inline citations are not formatted properly. Take a look at citation 4 and 5. One of them does not have a publisher field; the other one does not. Also, "NHC" should be spelled out on all the references, or barring that, at the very least in the first one, with an appropriate wikilink. Also, the same goes for most of the publisher fields on the rest of the citations: they need an appropriate wikilink if one is available. Titoxd(?!?) 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]- All of those issues have been rectified. —Cuiviénen 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, looks ok. Support. Titoxd(?!?) 04:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those issues have been rectified. —Cuiviénen 22:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- SUPPORT. From my read, passes the FA criteria. Well-referenced, well-written article. —ExplorerCDT 09:44, 10 January 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.