Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Evansville Tornado of November 2005/archive1

Evansville Tornado of November 2005
Self-nomination. Considerable work has been done to the article to get the aftermath and the history intact and all the citations into the article. I think it is ready for FAC. The number of sources was somewhat limited (much of it comes from Evansville-based news sources) but considerable information was found in them. It was the most significant tornado event of 2005 and the deadliest single tornado so far in the 21st century with 25 deaths. Currently a GA. CrazyC83 02:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The title should probably be renamed to something like "Midwest United States Tornado Outbreak of November 2005", or something shorter. As it is, the title makes me think it will only be about the Evansville tornado. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Such would not disambiguate it well from the November 15 and November 27 outbreaks, and to a lesser extent the November 12 outbreak. It was hardly an outbreak as well; it would not have had an article if it weren't for that one tornado which alone warrants it. Such also has precedent in other articles, such as 1998 Nashville tornado outbreak and Andover, Kansas Tornado Outbreak. CrazyC83 02:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. Well, in that case, the infobox should be changed then. It clearly says Evansville Tornado Outbreak. The article needs more lede, as well. You should probably reiterate that the death table in the Evansville tornado area section is actually a death table by county. Right now, it is rather ambiguous. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed those. CrazyC83 14:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right? WP:MOS regarding citations - no spaces between punctuation/words and <ref&gt;; no cite webbing? Is also relatively short... Oppose. – Chacor 15:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ref punctuation fixed, Sandy (Talk) 16:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL, "You're kidding, right?" is hardly constructive. --Holderca1 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't you CIV yourself? Making comments like that is hardly constructive either. IMO this was/is far from FA. I have the right to express that I don't think this is FA, and Crazy should know better too. Featured article candidates/Hurricane David, for example. – Chacor 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I repeat my previous comment. What comment are you referring to?  All I said was your comment was not constructive.  You do have the right to express whether you think it is a FA or not, but snide comments are unnecessary.  This article has been through a GA and a peer review, if the feedback given during those that the article doesn't need much improvement, then the next logical step is here.  Again, lets be constructive.  --Holderca1 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to bother participating in this ridiculous petty nonsense. My striking out of the oppose does not mean I no longer oppose this article becoming an FA. In fact, I still do. But this ridiculous argument started over me voicing my concerns about the judgment of the nominator in bringing this to RFA, by someone else who has worked on the article, is simple that - ridiculous. I shall have no part of this. – Chacor 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, I have no problems with your concerns about the article or your comments on what needs to be fixed. My problem is with you belittling other contributors.  Whether I have contributed to this article is irrelevant.  I personnaly oppose this as a featured article anyway.  Isn't the point of FA to write better articles.  Won't this article be a better article following this nomination whether it passes or fails? --Holderca1 15:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Strongly Oppose In all fairness to parties involved, and while I'd love to see us at meteorology get our first FA, this still needs a lot of work.  I personally don't even think it's A-class (though it is close).
 * 1) Cite web would look a lot neater, I personally will get on that.
 * 2) Lots of grammar/clarity problems.
 * 3) Shouldn't this be titled Evansville tornado outbreak or something to that effect...the article is clearly about the outbreak and not the individual tornado. -Runningonbrains 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Refs 4-8, 10, 17, 18, 21 and 22 are either broken links or link to a generic page which no longer lists the information that was (may have been?) there. Strengthens my opposition...this article just isn't ready. -Runningonbrains 08:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree largely with Runningonbrains, though I'm not sure of the suggested article move. If this article is about a significant tornado, it needs to be only about the tornado. Otherwise, it needs to be about the whole outbreak. The article seems to me to have trouble with knowing what exactly it is - it's a good article, but at the moment it's not quite what the title suggests. Sorry guys :( Crimsone 15:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, too short and too listy. And I'm sorry, but I find the first paragraph of "Aftermath" more trivial than the Trivia section (which is about the number of deaths! How's that trivia?) Who is the unintroduced "Gair" in "Aftermath"? Neither his being "taken aback" nor the things he's quoted as saying are encyclopedic, IMO. And please lose the trivia section as a matter of urgency. The facts in it are suitable for merging into the article proper. Bishonen | talk 01:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC).