Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tropical Storm Henri (2003)

Tropical Storm Henri (2003)
As author of the article, I feel it complies to the featured article criteria, and would like to nominate it for featured article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, looks good and seems comprehensive for a relatively minor storm. Everyking 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Another great entry. Mercenary2k 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, one more from WikiProject Tropical cyclones!--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, with a conflict of interest, as I copyedited the entire article a while ago. Tito xd (?!?) 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Not much to say. CrazyC83 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Article is well done, and is featured quality. Hello32020 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Weak support . Some suggestions for the lead:
 * Tropical Storm Henri was a weak tropical storm that formed in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. I suggest removing both "weak" and "that".
 * The flooding was described as a 1 in 500 year event. Described by who? When was the last such event? A very non-flowing sentence, I suggest removing it entirely.
 * Also, some numbers remain unreferenced, such as damage tolls. Overall the article is well-written, well-structured, and well-referenced.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with the first one is that "that" is necessary in this case; "Tropical Storm Henri was a weak tropical storm formed in the 2003 Altantic hurricane season" lacks the relative pronoun needed to make the sentence grammatically correct. The 1/500 year event is a technical term, described nicely at 100-year flood; it is already linked from the Mid-Atlantic impact section, and the reference for the number indicates that the Delaware Geological Survey is the one who gave that estimate. I personally think it is better to leave extraneous details away from the lede and in the body of the article, but I'll try to weave the sentence in a little bit better. As for the damage total of $19.6M, it is a direct addition of the two numbers described in the impact section below ($16.1M for Delaware, and $3.5M for Pennsylvania), which do have references adjacent to them; so, we do not need a footnote there. Tito xd (?!?) 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)