Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Giants2008 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC).

Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season

 * Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 Pacific hurricane season featured above-average activity, but minimal impact and fatalities (fortunately). I have significantly improved the status of the article and feel that it now meets the criteria to be recognized as a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I have only one concern, which is that of referencing: in the lede, damage from Bud and Carlotta is mentioned, yet neither is referenced. Other than that, I'm satisfied with the article. Nice one as usual, TAWX. Cloudchased (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Referenced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - seems comparable to other featured timelines. Only one point of concern- "East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the central Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W to the International Date Line" - so the central Pacific is located entirely inside the East Pacific? Looks good besides that. -- Pres N  19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That should say west, not east. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Only one concern: what's with repeating "operationally" in the third paragraph (same sentence even)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is most educational and encyclopedic. It is meticulously sourced throughout to appropriate citations. My only minor quibble is the title Notes for that subsection: Notes usually refers to Harvard Citations followed by a References section with the full Citations -- this type of section should be called Footnotes. Great job overall by, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

- SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.