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 promoted by Karanacs 16:56, 30 June 2009 [1].

---

Hurricane Kiko (1989)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Hurricane Kiko (1989)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA criteria. I've used all available sources from my research of the storm, both online and off. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (sorry I missed this first run through, not sure how I did so...heh.) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the source check Ealdgyth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sorry to see that your nom has not garnered many comments. I found this article listed on FAC urgents, please feel free to review another article from the list as there are others in your same situation. I made a number of minor edits, mostly concerning wikilinking. Otherwise, looks good. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well-written, comprehensive, appropriately illustrated, etc. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great article that meets all criteria, very nice article, and deserves to be a Featured Article. Another great piece of writing Cyclonebiskit. Darren23 (Contribs) 19:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 1a. This feels fairly rough and slammed together based on my reading of the lead. It doesn't appear to have gotten any significant attention from anyone other than the primary author. Significant revision needed before the prose will meet a professional standard. A independent copyeditor is needed to remedy problems such as these, just from the lead:
  • Nebulous statements. The very first sentence: "one of the strongest ... to make landfall" Ever? That year? There is a vast difference between, say, one of the 5 strongest or one of the 100 strongest. But, we're left to guess.
  • "Slowly tracking towards the northwest" How is this different from "Slowly tracking northwest"?
  • "A turn towards the west also occurred at this time" Clumsy... "a turn occurred"? Why not just "The storm turned westward at this time"? If you turned right on Main Street you wouldn't say "A turn towards Main Street occurred".
  • "The hurricane rapidly weakened to a tropical storm later that day and further to a tropical depression" Certainly, weakened into, and further into?
  • "while tracking towards the south" Again, why not "tracking southward"? Are the conventions for this type of language in the WikiProject?
  • "the impacts from it" Much less laborious: "its impacts"

--Laser brain (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've copyedited the entire article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JC. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: all verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: ((Most intense landfalling Pacific hurricanes)) is causing a band of ugly whitespace just after the first paragraph in Meteorological history. The text is also ending up too close to the table. For aesthetics (and to prevent distractions), can a gap be padded around the table and the "clear" function removed? Jappalang (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support. It is looking much better after Juliancolton's edits, and I've gone through and done some cleanup. I think the redlinks need to be audited for likelihood of ever becoming articles. Some of them are redirect candidates, perhaps. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have not read the whole article, but I noticed one thing. In the first paragraph under section "Preparations and Impact" you transcribed the entire list. Is that necessary? For a FA, the prose must be engaging and that certainly is not. Potapych (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.