Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900)

List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900)
(Previous nom) The previous nomination failed because only two people voted on it, one of which wasn't an opposition and the other was earlier today without a sufficient objection. I still think it adheres to the criteria, so I'm nominating it again in hope more people will vote on it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, appears to meet the featured list criteria, and the image criterion can be ignored here because it is extremely difficult to find images for storms prior to 1900. --Core desat  05:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I still feel that doubts noted by your sources (e.g. National Hurricane Centre entries with footnotes "c" and "z") should be indicated in the article and that the storms with dubious casualty figures should be excluded from the Deadly Storms table. The NHC source has several pages of interesting information about the history, terminology, and reporting accuracy pertaining to this period. Surely another paragraph could be added to the lead with some of this info. The lead for the Deadly storms section could be expanded with info from the "Casualty Information" in the source. Colin°Talk 08:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit of that. The problem is, this article is on Florida hurricanes, not tropical cyclone deaths in general, so I didn't change all of it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Colin°Talk 17:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Just that the dash after the date, I believe, should not go like this "1850- A storm..." but like this "1850 – A storm..." Small nitpick, but could you fix that? Thanks! Renata 02:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You got it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment There is no value in having links to standalone years throughout the article. No value is provided by this. Hmains 03:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure I understand. Are you suggesting removing the year links throughout the article? That would be against the format that the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject does, and I don't see the harm in having them wikilinked. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The harm is that links should only be added when the content of the linked article has material that contributes to the understanding of the base article. These links that simply point to 'year articles' have no such value.  And would not no matter what the article/project.  Hmains 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the remaining links to years and dates. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Date need to be properly wikilinked to enable user preferences. Both day-month and year need to be linked. Rmhermen 03:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For the most part they are. Do you mean every last year has to be linked? I thought that the year was only supposed to be wikilinked once at its first use. What, in specific, is your concern? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The proper format for 'month day year' dates is month day year no matter how often the particular month day and year recur in the article. Not my idea; just the WP date guidelines for 'user date preferences'. Hmains 23:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I added the extra links. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Rmhermen 00:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)