Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Elita


 * 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 19:03, 9 April 2008.

Cyclone Elita
I'm nominating this article for featured article because some people told me to do it. I wrote it, with some help by Miss Madeline, and I believe it's another great tropical cyclone article. I would dare you to prove me wrong, but chances are you would find some things that the article could be improved upon. So, I dare you to prove me wrong, so I know what else can be done to the article. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Well, it won't be me proving you wrong. Links work. Sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, so would you be willing to support? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to find the time to do an in depth reading of the prose and such soon. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Very slight oppose I'll be happy to support when these pesky questions are answered, they are mainly things that just don't make sense to me at the moment.


 * Support It's featured-quality, and well sourced and such. Nice job guys. TheNobleSith (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is worthy of featured quality at the moment, though I still have a few comments:
 * The Aftermath section a whole bunch of figures I find slightly overwhelming
 * It's made up of just 4 sections. The featured article criteria say:
 * "It follows the style guidelines, including:a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming"
 * -- Phoenix -  wiki  19:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I cut down on some of the stats in the aftermath. Regarding the featured article criteria, having five individual sections (including see also and refs, or just 3 for content) should not be a problem. The content is evenly divided in the same way as most of the other featured tropical cyclone articles do. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah okay, it's a great article, I support making it an FA then...-- Phoenix -  wiki  22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Had a good read through with an eye to copyediting. Not much needed doing, I rephrased a couple of sentences, fixed a spelling error. The prose is very good. The refs are from a variety of sources, all formatted consistently. Lots of nbsps everywhere. Images are all properly licensed. Very good job. Woody (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.