Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989/archive1


 * 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 not promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Northeastern United States tornado outbreak of 1989
After peer review netted few comments, I am ready to feature this baby! Fire away...- Running On  Brains  03:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Object—needs copy editing and compliance with the Manual of Style.
 * "$275 million"—US dollars? (See Manual of Style (dates and numbers))
 * ✅- Running On  Brains  16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "produced 6 significant tornadoes"—spell out the number. (See Manual of Style (dates and numbers))
 * ✅- Running On  Brains  16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "The damage actually began early in the morning."—No need for actually.
 * ✅- Running On  Brains  16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "In the afternoon, however, activity increased in severity."—No need for however.
 * ✅- Running On  Brains  16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "While official archives say that it was a single tornado, it was likely 3 or more tornadoes..."—This sounds like original research.
 * The citation below is a reference. Here is a sticky point; in tornado surveys, the "official" tornado assessment is the one done by the National Weather Service or the Storm Prediction Center, but since these surveys often require a large amount of man power inexperienced meteorologists are sometimes forced to make surveys. Thus renowned researchers like Ted Fujita and Thomas P. Grazulis (who is the author of one of my sources you may see) occasionally call into question the "official" record.- Running On  Brains  16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "...F3 to F4 damage."—Why is every F instance bolded?
 * I have always done it as a way to make them stand out; the sentence always looks kind of choppy with a bunch of F-numbers in it, and I did this to help rectify it. If they are distracting or you feel they should be removed, I will gladly comply.- Running On  Brains  16:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * These examples all came from the first part of the article; the entire thing needs to be looked over and edited. Other problems: I see a reference that needs to be formatted. Full dates should be linked. The lead doesn't seem to summarize the entire article. Per Lead section, it should be capable of serving as a stand-alone summary.  Pagra shtak  15:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I must say, it is nice to finally have actionable comments...peer review was particularly frustrating, having the article on there for several weeks with only a few minor comments. I believe I have fixed the references problem. I also added a little bit to the lead, but I don't see much more essential material I could add there. - Running On  Brains  17:25, 21 June 2007 (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.