Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Atlantic hurricane season


 * 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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

2003 Atlantic hurricane season


I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it adheres wells to the featured article criteria. The only potential problems would be regarding MOS, which I admit I am not perfect at, as well as criterion 1a; however, after two others and myself copyedited it, I believe it is well-written. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think it is good, but a season summary would work well. Juliancolton (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is summary of the season. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess so. BTW, what are those two boxes in front of your username? Juliancolton (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * They're music notes. :) Do you support, oppose? --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't see anything wrong with it. Juliancolton (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Support. Nothing wrong with it.Jason Rees (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * now Support Comment A shame that the article opens with "The 2003 Atlantic hurricane season was an active season with tropical activity before and after the official bounds of the season, the first such occurrence in 50 years." The sentence has no wikilinks and is jargon-laden and rather offputting. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I added links, but I am confused what is so offputting about it? --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Incomprehensible jargon, really. I see you've added some wikilinks. Could you also wikilink jargon words "season" (what's a hurricane season? - it's quite a fundamental question for an article like this) and "active". I know nothing about hurricane seasons - are there passive seasons? Does that mean a season with 0 hurricanes? It's the opening sentence of your article - it needn't be dumbed down, but for those prepared to click through it should be comprehensible even to a complete novice like me. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I explained the season better in the second lede paragraph. The term hurricane season is Wikilinked, FWIW, so I don't think "season" also needs to be linked. I don't think "active" constitutes as jargon, especially given that the second sentence of the article explains how many storms there were. Yes, I suppose there can be passive seasons, which would mean season with few storms; two seasons were recorded without any hurricanes. The article is mostly based off of another featured article, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's better, thanks. Hope you agree! --Dweller (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The table on the bottom seems kind of overwhelming. This isn't a major problem, I just wanted to see if you thought it was. Juliancolton (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a problem. The sections are clearly labeled. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Moved unactionable oppose to talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Note; there are WP:MOSNUM issues in the lead (regarding spelling out numbers), and I found basic copyedit errors in the first section of the article. Please have someone else go through the article.
 * Noted hurricane expert Dr. William Gray on April 4 predicted 12 named storms, with 8 reaching hurricane strength of which 3 reaching Category 3 strength.[3]

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I got the number things, and I got someone else to go through the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Content-wise, this has everything needed for a FA. — jdorje (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Very well written article, has good prose throughout the article, seems qualified to be a FA. Hello32020 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Accept I am new to the FAC process myself (having an article going through at the same time...) but to me this looks great. An informative read and great style. No obvious MOS breaches as far as I can tell.Dick G (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.