Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Pacific hurricane season

2003 Pacific hurricane season
This is a self-nomination on behalf of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I believe it meets all the featured article criteria, in particular it is well-referenced and stable. It covers all the storms of the season with a satellite image and track for them all. It is also includes information on the pre-season forecasts. I think its about time the WikiProject had a featured seasonal article (other than the 2005 Atlantic season, which is hardly typical). Support.Nilfanion (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. íslenska hurikein | #12 (samtal) 16:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support ForestH2  t/c 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nicely laid out. Terri G 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment (leaning toward object): 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is superior to this, in both content and layout. There's more analysis, for one thing&mdash;economic impact, damages, etc. Granted, there's a big difference between the two seasons (that's why this isn't an object at the moment). For example, Marty hit a month after Ignacio; was cleanup already complete, or were problems exacerbated?  Is the problem here that there isn't as much information available?  As for layout, I much prefer 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, as it reads more like a typical encyclopedia article. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  18:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has dozens of subarticles. However this article has just 1 subarticle, Marty. Interestingly, this layout is preferred within the project for the storms section, and as this is the entire coverage of all but one of the storms, that section should be like that IMO; as we couldn't restructure on the lines of 2005 without major info loss (unless we have Tropical Storm Hilda (2003)). That in turn calls into the question the need for an impact section, as it would add little new and would be repetition. Information is very hard to come by for Mexican storms for some reason :( --Nilfanion (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to Spanish-language sources? I imagine that Mexican newspapers would cover the effects of the storms in significant detail, but I'm not sure how many are available online.  I'll keep this as a comment and see if I can dig up some good print sources. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  21:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There really isn't much out there; I looked at what was available for Marty, and it is at most a paragraph. However, adding it all to the storm summary would overwhelm the article towards just one storm; most of the information and detail should remain on the Hurricane Marty (2003). However, some of it should be moved here&mdash;how much do you suggest? Tito xd (?!?) 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If more isn't available for the other landfalling storms, then I wouldn't worry about adding more about Marty. There's already more on that storm in this article than any of the others.  In a more perfect world we'd have about that much information on all of the land-falling storms, and would thus be able to turn the article into prose format, instead of a list-like point-by-point presentation. --Spangineeres  (háblame)  23:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll summarize the info and add it. Now, the question is, to the Marty storm summary, or to a separate section? Tito xd (?!?) 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments: The graph for the ACE section's source is different from this NHC one. For example, the one the article cites clearly shows the 1997 season as being the second most actice, while the other graph clearly shows it isn't. My best guess as to the reason for this discrepancy is the fact that the NHC graph only uses ACE in the east Pacific proper, while NCDC one also includes the central and (possibly) western Pacific. I think the article would be improved by splitting the ACE into eastern and central Pacific portions, as is done for the current season. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually the source of the ACE section is the 2003 TCRs. The graph is to source the claim that the season is inactive- it does that purpose. I'm not sure about how best to split EPac/CPac ACE. My opinion is the totals should be included (so each storm can be compared). Seeing how 2003 is inactive some prose about the few storms to cross 140W giving the seperate EPac and CPac ACE values for those storms would suffice.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose that it is better now. Support with the disclaimer that I have worked on this article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)