Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galveston Hurricane of 1900/archive1

Galveston Hurricane of 1900
Self-nomination (mostly). I think I've addressed the few complaints it got while on Peer Review. I'd probably give it another round on Peer Review if the anniversary of the storm wasn't approaching on September 8. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:45, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll second this. I've read the fascinating book Isaac's Storm and this article covers the topic well.  I'd quibble with the article title.  I realize that this happened before we started naming hurricanes, so there is no definite name, but wouldn't just "Galveston Hurricane" be better? PedanticallySpeaking 19:45, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no one refers to it as the "Galveston Hurricane". There's been a lot of unnamed hurricanes to hit Galveston (including the powerful 1915 storm), so some sort of qualifier is necessary. "Great Galveston Hurricane" and variations using the year are common. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:03, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Comprehensive, well written. I would however, prefer the title of 'Galveston Hurricane of 1900' as being more neutral and descriptive, unless the current one is clearly the more popular one. - Taxman 12:59, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't. It's actually about a factor of three less popular (by Google test) than your sugggestion (which is roughly as popular as '1900 Galveston Hurricane'). Enough that I'll probably move it, but not enough that I was going to bother for my own purposes. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 14:38, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely well-written. &bull; Benc &bull; 15:21, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - a very nice piece of work. Denni &#9775; 16:59, 2004 Aug 27 (UTC)
 * Support - Extremely well-written.  &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:21, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Excellent article --Zerbey 18:56, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment - The article looks good to me, though I would try to write full-sentence captions for it (see Captions). -- ke4roh 18:58, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd try, but I don't know what to write for them. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. I wanted to mention the destruction in the first one and bring in the bit about people being trapped in the second. I don't think it's any less accurate now. I thought about swapping the photos as well, but the first image is so good, with the church in the background, that I decided to leave them where they were. --195.11.216.59 10:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * An article I'd intended to expand for a very long time -- I mentioned it to Cyrius in the hopes he'd write a few paragraphs and help get me started. To my mild shame (and his great credit) he's done an exemplary job to which I can add nothing but my support for featuring it.  Bravo, Cyrius! Jwrosenzweig 22:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Even better than it was while on PR. Great work! --mav 03:23, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Ambi 07:08, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)