Self-nom. I've been working on this article for a while, and I believe it is now ready for FAC and meets WP:WIAFA. It has already been reviewed by WikiProject Tropical cyclones and it received an A-Class rating. It also is a good article. Titoxd(?!?) 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Titoxd. CrazyC83 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Dr. Cash 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support; it's a bit short, but then again it's a subarticle. Would like to see a bit of expansion if possible. Everyking 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very nice article, and rest per nom. Hello32020 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'd like to see more context, like a paragraph about the conditions that support its formation. It doesn't tell me how or why it came to be, just really dry one thing happened after another. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded a little bit the formation section, to address this. Mostly, an upper-level tropospheric trough stopped shearing the system, allowing tropical cyclogenesis to take place. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they speak English in What? :) Say what again!. - Taxman Talk 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing that was stopping the other thing to get stronger went away, so the other thing strengthened. Titoxd(?!?) 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What I was thinking was a little broader than the immediate context, something like a summary of the rest of the season, and the things that happened in the season. The article as it is is extemely narrow, so I feel like there's a lot of room for context to expand it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is well beyond the scope of the article; the relevant article would be the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which is also an FA, and is prominently linked in the navigation template at the right-hand side of the page. The purpose of the article is to describe the immediate context of the formation of Katrina, as it is a subarticle of Hurricane Katrina itself. Titoxd(?!?) 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm just a supporter of the idea that every article should be able to stand on its own. I guess it would be a little duplicative, but the scope just feels so narrow as it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's a subarticle of Katrina. Given the topic, it does stand on its own. Any info about the rest of the season isn't about the article title. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it is. An article about a person should talk about their parents, for example, to be thorough. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; great article (rather ironic that you nominated this for deletion not too long ago!) --Spangineerws (háblame) 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Support: The article is fairly well written, but could be improved. Although the information included is quite interesting, useful and important, more could be added. Dhastings 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]