Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hurricane Sandra"

Revision as of 21:15, 5 September 2006

Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.

Support

Self-nomination support - It's on a more specialist topic than normal, and I think it's well-written. I would believe this would probably be given B-class status at Wikipedia if this was a Wikipedia article. I've tried my best to make this as much like a Wikipedia cyclone article (there are twelve Wikipedia cyclone Featured Articles), and I think I've done a good job. Please tell me if there's any way I can improve this, but I think it's already very, very good. LE (WP) | Talk 10:26, 4 June 2006 (GMT)

Oppose

Doesn't go "above and beyond" general article standards. A good article, but not featured quality. The article really seems to be written for a template: it seems like it includes standard facts but no interesting and neat-to-read material. Ceo \ rant \ rave 02:33, 6 June 2006 (GMT)

Why don't you try writing it then? Could you be clearer in your criticism? What exactly does it lack? LE (WP) | Talk 04:43, 7 June 2006 (GMT)

I'd say this is a good, solid article. It's got a lot of facts and is of good use. However, it's just not strong enough to go on the main page. It lacks voice and details. I know this is an encyclopedia, so the writing will naturally be a bit dry, but in order to be featured, an article needs to have better prose and more interesting details. I hope I'm being clear enough... Ceoran_ta 01:15, 6 September 2006 (GMT)
A bit short, and should have less dead links. Lightman 18:19, 5 September 2006 (GMT)

Neutral

Comments/Questions

Moved from support: only registered users may vote. Ceo \ rant \ rave 02:33, 6 June 2006 (GMT) :
1. I think this has potential. 153.20.95.69
2. Thumbs up from me... 58.6.47.219 08:38, 5 June 2006 (GMT)

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 # Doesn't go "above and beyond" general article standards. A good article, but not featured quality. The article really seems to be written for a template: it seems like it includes standard facts but no interesting and neat-to-read material. '''''[[User:Ceorana|<font color="#000080">Ceo</font>]] \ [[User talk:Ceorana|<font color="#ff0000">rant</font>]] <font color=white>\</font> [[Special:Contributions/Ceorana|<font color=white>rave</font>]]''''' 02:33, 6 June 2006 (GMT)
 #:Why don't '''''you''''' try writing it then? Could you be clearer in your criticism? What exactly does it lack? [[User:Liverpool England|LE]] ([[Wikipedia:User:NSLE|WP]]) | [[User_talk:Liverpool_England|Talk]] 04:43, 7 June 2006 (GMT)
+#::I'd say this is a good, solid article. It's got a lot of facts and is of good use. However, it's just not strong enough to go on the main page. It lacks voice and details. I know this is an encyclopedia, so the writing will naturally be a bit dry, but in order to be featured, an article needs to have better prose and more ''interesting'' details. I hope I'm being clear enough... [[User:Ceorana|''C''eoran]]<sub>[[User talk:Ceorana|'''''<span style="color:red">t</span>''''']]</sub>[[User:Ceorana|a]] 01:15, 6 September 2006 (GMT)
 # A bit short, and should have less dead links. [[User:Lightman|Lightman]] 18:19, 5 September 2006 (GMT)