Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Florida hurricanes

List of Florida hurricanes
I suppose it is as ready as it's going to get. It is useful, as a list of Florida hurricanes is certainly an interesting topic. It is comprehensive to the best of my knowledge, and it has been updated for the inclusion of other storms known to affect the state. One concern is its factual accuracy. Everything in the article is factually accurate, but adequately sourcing is near impossible. The cumulative information from each of the sub-article time periods is taken from the lead of the sub-articles. Since the lead takes the information from the sub-articles, and all of the sub-articles are featured lists (except one, which is currently on FLC), I hope that is not a problem. I have been the primary editor for the last few months, so it is stable. It's about hurricanes so it's uncontroversial, and appropriate sub-headings based on other featured hurricane lists means it is well-constructed. I believe it follows the MOS (if not, I'll be happy to fix it), and there are appropriate images. I'll address any comments. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Its another of Hurricanehink's articles. He does a good job and this is no exception. Mit ch 32contribs 19:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - up to the standards of the sub-articles, and great on its own. --PresN 03:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please add "format=PDF" to PDF references, use en dashes for ranges (1900–1949) and an em dash or spaced en dash instead of a hyphen when used as a break (01 Jan 1960—Tropical Storm Hink).  Pagra shtak  14:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Those objections have been addressed. Any more problems? --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm personally iffy with the 4 summary sections and following detailed listing. This is really a "list of Florida hurricanes (2000—)" that also serves as a "portal" to the four other sublists. You might as well spin off the last part immediately and put a summary instead (itwould certainly be long enough to stand on its own IMHO). Also, I'd like to see the same basic stats given for the most recent period (number of storm, most powerful storm, most storms in a season etc.) as for the others. Finally, "listed by months" is inaccurate: you don't list any hurricane! It should be something like "monthly statistics".
 * As an unrelated side note, is it just me or are the numbers decreasing with time? I have a hunch that since storms before the 50s could hardly be observed reliably, more are treated as possible hurricanes than there actually were. Circeus 22:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I split off the 2000 to present, and changed the article to how the others are. I also changed the listed by month, and to show that the numbers are not decreasing with time, I included a table that lists storms by decade. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that off-hand comment was just an oddball observation. There's probably more to it than my almost random speculation (e.g. how much historical records we have). Anyway, support. Circeus 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)