Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hurricane Sandra"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Gruenberg2 (Talk | contribs) (Neutral.) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | <h3> {{PAGENAME}} FAC Vote (1/2/ | + | <h3> {{PAGENAME}} FAC Vote (1/2/1) </h3> |
''Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.'' | ''Please remember to sign your votes with 4 tildes ( ~~~~) and update the vote tally when you vote.'' | ||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''Neutral''' | '''Neutral''' | ||
− | # | + | # On the one hand, I support this inasmuch as I'd like to see a greater diversity of featured articles, and as it seems as good an article as one could do for a hurricane. On the other hand, it is a little dry and specialist, and I worry about its relevance. As to the dead links issue...whilst I agree the author shouldn't be 'penalised' for others' sloth, dead links should in general be avoided. Basically, I'm open to persuasion on this one. Nice infobox. [[Special:Contributions/Gruenberg2|<font color="blue">~</font>]][[User:Gruenberg2|<font color="green">Gruen</font>]][[User talk:Gruenberg2|<font color="red">2alk</font>]] 10:30, 6 September 2006 (GMT) |
'''Comments/Questions''' | '''Comments/Questions''' |
Revision as of 06:30, 6 September 2006
Hurricane Sandra FAC Vote (1/2/1)
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... Ceoranta 01:15, 6 September 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)
- A bit short, and should have less dead links. Lightman 18:19, 5 September 2006 (GMT)
Neutral
- On the one hand, I support this inasmuch as I'd like to see a greater diversity of featured articles, and as it seems as good an article as one could do for a hurricane. On the other hand, it is a little dry and specialist, and I worry about its relevance. As to the dead links issue...whilst I agree the author shouldn't be 'penalised' for others' sloth, dead links should in general be avoided. Basically, I'm open to persuasion on this one. Nice infobox. ~Gruen2alk 10:30, 6 September 2006 (GMT)
Comments/Questions
- Moved from support: only registered users may vote. Ceo \ rant \ rave 02:33, 6 June 2006 (GMT) :
- I think this has potential. 153.20.95.69
- Thumbs up from me... 58.6.47.219 08:38, 5 June 2006 (GMT)