Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Gabrielle (2007)
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 promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:02, 17 November 2008 [1].
- Nominator(s): –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's part of my featured topic plans. Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) wrote most of the meteorological history. The article's fairly short (but comprehensive), so any concerns will be efficiently addressed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Reference 25 deadlinks. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. Strange, it seemed to work when I used the link-checker. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Other than that I see no problem :) Great job to both you and Hurricanehink. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images - NASA/NOAA or made by editors from same, all free w/ appropriate license tags, no problems (damn, why do they have to make this so easy?) --MASEM 19:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- This article has a good length and covers the topic pretty good.--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 20:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elena, you supported this FAC three minutes after you reviewed an FLC. Out of curiosity, did you read any part of the article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- This may sound untrue, but I read both of them sometime this week when I wanted to just escape from this season. Now Back to the FAC--Kirk76 1854 Atlantic Hurricane Season 21:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elena, you supported this FAC three minutes after you reviewed an FLC. Out of curiosity, did you read any part of the article? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Expand the primary units in the "Impact" section. Gary King (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like a broken record: why are we back to displaying only the year rather than the full publication date which is available on sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least on my slow browser, the inclusion of full publication dates leads to increased load times. Also, it adds more (IMO) unnecessary text to clutter up the edit window. I'll add them if needed, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V (policy): "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." If we have full dates, we should use them; it makes it easier to locate the info in the future if URLs change, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, ok. Publication dates added. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V (policy): "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books." If we have full dates, we should use them; it makes it easier to locate the info in the future if URLs change, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least on my slow browser, the inclusion of full publication dates leads to increased load times. Also, it adds more (IMO) unnecessary text to clutter up the edit window. I'll add them if needed, though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment - For ref 25 (the one that was deadlinked), a page number from the Virginia-Pilot would be nice. Also, the access date isn't needed anymore since the link is dead. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Accessdate removed, and I'll look for the page number for that ref. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"...a temporary decrease allowed the cyclone to become a tropical storm" - a temporary decrease in what?"No fatalities were reported. No fatalities were reported.""Virginia-Pilot" is not a publisher, it's a newspaper. It should be listed as a "work" in the cite news template. "Landmark Publishing" is the publisher, but I don't think that's necessary to include in the citation.
Kaldari (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Not sure how that duplicated sentence got there. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.