Talk:Hurricane Sandra/Archive

Hurricane Sandra/Archive FAC Vote (1/6/2) - CLOSED

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

Support

1. 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

1. 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)

2. A bit short, and should have less dead links. Lightman 18:19, 5 September 2006 (GMT)

   It isn't my fault that the others in my region have chosen not to start NSWiki articles. It shouldn't be penalised for that. LE (WP) | Talk 05:14, 6 September 2006 (GMT)

3. Good article, but is nowhere near the quality of all the other featured articles. --swilatia 15:11, 7 October 2006 (GMT)
4. Not that it isn't a good article, because it is, but it is not the sort of article that I'd like to see on the front page. Frankly, its boring. But as I said again, its still a good article. Spaam 07:16, 13 October 2006 (GMT)
5. On reflection, I tentatively oppose for now — The article's still fine but it's being counterweighted by LE's attitude on the comments made here, and his responses are a bit... unsatisfactory. For example, "please tell me if there's anything to be improved" should not be followed by a "why don't you try writing it then". (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 19:45, 18 October 2006 (GMT)
6. Underdeveloped for featuring considerations. ^Je_y^° 22:02, 18 October 2006 (GMT)

Neutral

1. 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)
2. Agreed with Gruen - support because of the excellent ideas LE has and the effort he's put in here, but it's a dry, sometimes irrelevant and not-necessarily-featurable topic. Article's solid, topic's questionable for featureability. (( Pacitalkia )) Time sent: 05:01, 13 October 2006 (GMT)
3. For now I'm in the camp that I want this to be a featured article. I want more featured articles, and this article is well written and logically organized. That said, I believe featured articles should be launching grounds to additional articles, and current there are too many dead links. I will change my vote to yes if the dead links can be removed or if they will point to mid-sized stubs (i.e. articles with at least a paragraph of content that could help provide some sense of belonging). Overall, excellent job! Mikitivity 17:02, 18 October 2006 (GMT)

Comments/Questions