Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Gert (1993)/archive1

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 Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [1].

Hurricane Gert (1993)

• Featured article candidates/Hurricane Gert (1993)/archive1

Nominator(s): Auree ★ 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) and 12george1 (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a complete and factual account on this large and devastating storm. Since its previous state, the article has undergone major changes and expanded greatly in both size and comprehensiveness. It has also received an extensive peer review, which helped improve in particular its prose. In addition, the article contains a well-balanced amount of both reliable English and Spanish sources, and I believe there are no significant omissions of coverage. Auree ★ 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that User:12george1 is co-nomming. Auree ★ 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and comments to come. HurricaneFan25 21:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Whose support is this (it's unsigned), and why is an editor supporting with such a long list of concerns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The support and comments were from User:Hurricanefan24. I added his signature and the time he made the edit. Auree ★ 01:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Multiple pages should be notated using "pp." not "p."
• check publisher for FN 17

• Not too sure on this one. Should it be "Congreso Iberoamericano sobre Desarrollo y Ambiente"? Auree ★ 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FN 32: page(s)?
• FN 41: publisher?
• FN 43: retrieval date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the rest has been addressed. Thanks for the review as usual Auree ★ 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. - right, reading through now (well, not while I type this) and jotting notes below (I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go - revert me if I inadvertently change the meaning): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where as much as 31.41 in (798 mm) of precipitation was measured - just a query as I'm not familiar with these articles, is it usual to go to this degree of accuracy in precipitation?

Yeah, if such a specific total is available. It's even preferred most of the time (for meteorological accuracy). Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what a circulation is in this context.

How does "wind circulation" sound?

sounds fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its cloud pattern continued to organize - does "organize" have a specific meaning here, if we just mean "gather" then I suggest "coalesce" might be better...?

Hmmm... I'm not too sure about this one, since it is a pretty common term in meteorology. I really like "coalesce" though, and I'm all for using it since it conveys the same meaning. I'll ask around at the WPTC chat Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok. cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

radio stations broadcast warning messages to aware the public - hmm, can't use "aware" as a transitive verb like that (?) - I'd go with "radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public"

Very true! Good call Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gert showed signs of intensification - why not just " Gert showed signs of getting stronger" or "intensifying"

I don't see much of a difference, but would "strengthening" work? Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yup. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although Gert's center remained off the coast of Costa Rica, its large circulation produced brisk winds and heavy precipitation across the country. - why not just "rainfall"? Is there a meaning in precipitation that is not in rainfall. I always try to use a plainer word as long as meaning is not compromised.

Rainfall would work better here, yeah. Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall nice work - surprisingly little to nitpick about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank ya for the review! Your edits were fine as well. I'm not sure if you're done, but the comments have been addressed.Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Nice work, good article.
  talk) 22:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per above.
  ^{Pacific Hurricane}

• Comment, some nitpicks:
  • The high terrain quickly disrupted its structure, and Gert entered the Pacific as a tropical depression by September 21. — can you be more exact as to where Gert re-emerged over the sea? It could have been over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or over the Sea of Cortez, and this sentence is arguably correct. Please be more specific,
    as not everyone can look at the track map and see it emerged near Cabo Corrientes
    .
    • If you can find a source to the location (which I didn't), I'd be glad to add it. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could use the best track to show what data point it was at when it entered into the Pacific. (Which would be Nayarit) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Awesome, thanks! Added that to the MH now—should I add it to the lede as well? Auree ★ 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering that you went into detail on how it moved over Central America, I say yes.
            cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Added. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A tropical wave, or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south, moved off the African coast well south of Dakar on September 5 and tracked rapidly westward across the tropical Atlantic. — use em dashes here, they work better for the interruption to explain "tropical wave"
    • Alright. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owing to favorable tropospheric conditions aloft, the system began showing signs of development, — did the source mention anything about what made the upper-level conditions favorable (e.g. an anticyclone)? Also, link "development" to tropical cyclogenesis
    • Unfortunately, it didn't, though I did add the wikilink. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Struck.
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Its cloud pattern continued to coalesce, and the NHC upgraded it to Tropical Storm Gert on September 15.[3] — the lede mentioned that Gert briefly attained named-storm status, so add a timestamp here, so the reader can compare it to the landfall time you mention in the next sentence.
    • Yup, added. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved back inland near Belize City by the next day, allowing minimal opportunity for development — get rid of "by", and would "redevelopment" be better in this case?
    • Removed "by," but since I already mention it regained TS status redevelopment seems redundant. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe "even more intensification" would be better, then. "Development" is borderline jargony, and thus I'd avoid it.
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Disagree here.
          WP:WPTC/J states that "This term is self-defining so a wikilink should be sufficient," and a wikilink had been added. I think with the previous mention of it (and elaboration on how it developed) and the commonness of the term, a reader would understand. Auree ★ 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Don't entirely agree, but this is so minor that I'll write this one off to "author's style".
            cool stuff) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Inland, a ridge of high pressure forced a weakening Gert to turn back to the west-northwest. — this sentence made me think at first that there was a mesoscale ridge of some sort over Central America, which sort of goes against the requirement for ridges having to be synoptic-scale features. Please reword this to something like "Once a weakened Gert was inland, it began to feel the effects of a high-pressure ridge, and turned back to the west-northwest" or something similar.
    • Changed to your suggestion. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deepening convection consolidated over open waters with light wind shear, — you just said that the storm was weakening, so this makes no meteorological sense. (Yes, I know what you are trying to say. You need to explicitly say that Gert began to re-intensify once it entered the Gulf of Mexico.)
    • The way you reworded it sounds good for me.
      cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • On September 20, data from an air force aircraft indicated that the storm had evolved into a hurricane — Mexican Air Force? (I know it's not, say it was a USAF plane explicitly, as the lay reader doesn't know that.)
    • Meh, guess it couldn't hurt. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once inland, the storm accelerated and rapidly weakened over the mountainous region; — mention the Sierra Madre Oriental explicitly, as you mention it in the Impact section by name.
    • Mentioned. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gert entered the Pacific Ocean later that day, where it was reclassified as Tropical Depression Fourteen-E.[7] — why didn't it keep the same name? (Link to the relevant article, tropical cyclone naming.)
    • Linked. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After confirming the development of a tropical depression, authorities in Costa Rica issued a green alert[nb 1] for coastal regions on September 14,[13] which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast the following day.[14] — can you really say that the warning issued by the RSMC is an upgrade to the alert issued by the national meteorological organization? I like how you mention both, but I don't think that saying it is an "upgrade" is correct.
    • How does "replaced" sound? Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is still wrong. The alerts were issued by agencies in different countries, so the Costa Rican alert would remain active regardless of what warnings the U.S. National Hurricane Center issued. The current version of the text removes the "upgrade" text, which is an improvement, but I'd still mention explicitly who issued the tropical storm warning.
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Unfortunately, the source doesn't address who issued what. Auree ★ 22:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then just leave it as is.
            cool stuff) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • National television and radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public, while emergency crews were dispatched in case conditions would warrant. — "would" is the wrong tense.
    • What should it be? Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "warranted", or if you want to go
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Tweaked. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gert was a large and tenacious tropical cyclone for most of its lifespan, — "tenacious" is a borderline
    WP:PEACOCK
    term. (Never thought I'd say that in a hurricane FAC…)
    • Well, it survived all the way through Central America, and one of the highest terrains in the Americas while retaining its tropical cyclone status. What else would you have me use to express that? Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think it needs to be expressed, as the tone becomes borderline unencyclopedic.
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • George removed it altogether. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, the flooding affected 24,000 people and made communication with surrounding areas with limited road network nearly impossible.[15] — "limited road network" sounds awkward. I suggest "limited connectivity to the road network" or something similar.
    • Removed "limited road network" altogether. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Works for me.
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Perpetual heavy rain in the wake of the storm aggravated the situation, — it's still going on? o.O (Use "continued" here.)
    • Tweaked. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The federal governments of Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Spain donated over $300,000 in aid.[22] — each, or in total?
    • Combined. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although most of the affected population was aided within days, the limited road network caused a large delay in relief efforts to the hard-hit Mosquitia Region. — "received aid" would sound better here, and you used "road network" in the previous paragraph before. "Highway system" or something is equivalent and adds variety.
    • I agree with "received aid", just have bad experiences with it in previous reviews. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now it says "received aided".
        cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Gah, fixed. Auree ★ 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The governments of Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided $310,300 for the purchase of relief items. — again, is this a lump sum, or a contribution by each?
    • Combined. Auree ★ 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of my complaints are stylistic, but there are some accessibility and jargon complaints in there as well, and I would like to see these addressed before supporting.
  cool stuff) 03:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Awesome review, just what the article needed. Quick comments have been addressed, and I'll look into the other stuff. Auree ★ 03:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck most items, but a few are still outstanding.
      cool stuff) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support, all my points have been addressed to my satisfaction.
  cool stuff) 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I would like to see an image review and a spotcheck of the sources for this article. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where could I request these? Auree ★ 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Image Review - You're good.
  Wha? 02:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Woot, thanks! Auree ★ 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. There are far too many errors in the "publishers" of Spanish-language sources for me to determine quickly if these sources are reliable (every single one I checked was wrong). Also, when listing some obscure national commission, you should give the country. Auree, do you speak Spanish or are you using an online translator? When you find a PDF in Spanish, you sometimes have to follow that PDF back to where you got it to figure out who published it, and if the case is some student at some University, that may not be a reliable source. You haven't identified the CRID as a publisher, and it even has an English section of its website. Unless Titoxd (who speaks Spanish) has time to get to all of this, I will have to do it ... Please ask Titoxd if he can have a look with the aim of fixing the publishers, adding locations when they are country-specific entities, and checking that Spanish-language sources are accurately represented in the article. If he does so, he can ping me-- if he can't, pls ping me next week and I'll get to it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auree knows Spanish, so he can probably double-check himself.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks, YE (excess bolding removed). OK, following on Nikkimaria's original comment (above), here's the first one I found-- the rest are similar and need attention:

      (in Spanish) "Las inundaciones causadas por el Huracan "Gert" sus efectos en Hidalgo, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas y Veracruz" (PDF). El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil. p. 1. Retrieved 2011-10-26.

      This is publshed by www.crid.or.cr -- they have a website, and they have an English-language section of their website, hence they have an English-language publisher name. On the other hand, our readers will have no idea what "El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil" is or to what country it pertains. Next, if this was in fact actually published by some Costa Rican entity and then merely re-published by CRID, is it reliable? Should we have a "work" parameter as well as a "publisher" parameter on these sources? Titoxd will know, but the citations need to be cleaned up for two purposes-- should links go dead, our readers need to have enough info to know where to find them, and we need to know if these sources are reliable (that is, who actually published them, including the first publisher, what country etc). I found another one that was accessed on some library (El Salvador I think, but can't remember now) that appeared to be some sort of student publication, but I didn't check closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      For the record, real-life commitments prevent me from doing anything substantial in Wikipedia for the next month. (A couple of conferences and finals will do that to you.) I can't check the citations in a time frame that is reasonable for the purposes of this FAC.

      cool stuff) 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

      ]

Thanks for replying and pointing this out, Sandy. First off, I would like to clarify that I can fluently read/understand Spanish (I grew up with the language). Admittedly, I'm not the best at citation formatting, and I will have to check out the publisher issue. I'll ask others like Titoxd to help Auree ★ 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know you speak Spanish, that helps-- PS, I haven't looked closely enough, but I'm also wondering if the CRID is hosting copyvios? Do they have the rights to re-publish those PDFs? Similar on others-- I'm sure you all can sort this without me, then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is everything we need to know about CRID, which seems pretty authentic. The document on the effects in Mexico was originally published by CENAPRED, so I'm not sure how to format this. Auree ★ 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd helped me with some of the issues offsite, though I'm not sure if they have been fixed properly. It would be great if you could take another look. Auree ★ 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your diff of changes, and it still needs more ... not all have locations, and there are multiple (different) websites that indicate the same publisher. Are some of these being republished? For example, the CRID one is, I think. You may solve some of this by listing the original publisher under the Work parameter, and the website where you found it hoseted under the Publisher parameter-- remember that if those links go dead, folks need to know what to search on, and in many cases, the website you found it hosted on is not listed as the publisher. Give it another go, and I'll have a look later ??? Are you sure none of those websites are hosting copyvios? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way (unrelated to whether this article meets FA standards), if you all are going to be using Centro Regional de Información sobre Desastres a lot for citation, it needs an article at either there or

CRID needs a hatnote at top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright, I'll have a go at it once more. How would I best go about adding locations (if required) to those that apply to Central America/Latin America in general?

Edit: I've implemented your publisher/work suggestion to the sources, though I think I went a bit overboard with the locations... Auree ★ 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auree, I'll continue this on talk here so we can get it sorted without filling this page-- it may seem minor, but since you are likely to use these same sources often, we should get it sorted once and for all-- that will aid your future articles. Our goal is to make sure that if any of these websites go dead (government entities have a way of doing that in Latin America :), future editors and readers can still figure out where to find the original reports. Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my oppose for now, but remain frustrated at the way citations are written in this article. I don't have time to sort this further, but my concerns extend beyond the Spanish-language sources, and I suggest pinging in Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) for a look with an aim towards achieving a more professional citation standard for future hurricane FACs (he's good at this sort of thing, and may have better feedback than mine). I'm on a slow connection and am having a hard time loading the sources, so I'm afraid I'm not helping much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, Sandy. You did help a lot, and I appreciate your determination to improve the citation formatting for this article. I will continue working toward achieving a more professional standard of sourcing. Auree ★ 20:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Excellent article. Undeniably the best account of this storm available anywhere, which is my #1 criterion for FA status. That said, I have some comments regarding the met. history.
• A tropical wave—or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south - if you're going to describe it in the context of a "trough", you should mention that an EW is an inverted trough.

  I'll chime in here. Saying that easterly waves are inverted troughs raises the question, "What is an inverted trough?" Answering that is not the point of this article, and is too off-topic for my taste. I'd replace it with "area of low pressure".

  cool stuff) 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Due to its position at a relatively low latitude, interaction with the Intertropical Convergence Zone - dangling participle as far as I can tell, unless I'm interpreting this line incorrectly.
• the system began showing signs of development, as the deep convection organized into well-defined curved rainbands. - "as", here, is irritatingly vague. I'm not sure whether to interpret it as "while" or "since/because". It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's disconcerting to read something and not know its intended meaning.
• By that time, it had retraced toward the north-northwest under the influence of a mid- to upper-level trough over the eastern Gulf of Mexico. - I'm having a hard time visualizing this. "Under the influence of" could mean any number of things.

• Changed to "in response to". Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved - grammatically, "it" modifies "the storm's duration", which I'm sure isn't the intended meaning.
• Once Gert was inland, it began to feel - example of a phrase that could be simplified. "Once inland, Gert began to feel..."
• After crossing the Yucatán Peninsula and decreasing in organization,[7] it entered the Bay of Campeche as a tropical depression late on September 18 - I wouldn't use the pronoun "it" in a sentence that doesn't mention the subject by name or type ("Gert", "the system", "the cyclone", "the storm").

• Don't really agree here, it's quite obvious from the preceding sentences (and entire article). Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• that the storm had evolved into a hurricane with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) - "evolved" is incorrect here; it simply strengthened.
• Its forward motion had slowed slightly due to a shortwave trough to its north,[11] allowing the hurricane more time to organize over water. - weird sentence structure in general. I still don't like using "it" in the absence of an immediately preceding subject. Also, you should try to explain why the shortwave caused the storm to slow. Did it suppress the storm? Lend extra vorticity to the hurricane causing it to deepen vertically and in turn become embedded in a different steering pattern? Spin up a superstorm akin to 1993 which phased with two other sources of upper-level energy and encircled the globe, ensuring Gert couldn't gain latitude?

• I could try, but that'd be OR. The source doesn't mention anything else. Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed here. This definitely goes into the range of synoptic analysis, which is blatant OR for our purposes.
    cool stuff) 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• I'll try... any suggestions? Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Although deep convection waxed and waned in intensity, satellite observations - another dangling participle-type thingy...
• No redevelopment occurred due to cold waters - this is more obvious, but I still don't like "due to" without any indication of cause and effect.

Overall, I feel like this section in particular is a bit knotty and disjointed, and could afford to be polished up. Feel free to point out where I'm off-base. Juliancolton (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting, Julian Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - enough of my concerns have been addressed to justify supporting. The information and quality of presentation in the article is very consistent with FA status. Juliancolton (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the nominator solicited my involvement in relation to citations, and I will be commenting at
  gnomish problem I might just muck in one day and fix it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm going to sort out any citation problems here and then sign off; after this weekend when I have to go do something rather important to my personal life. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 47/47 citations for citation formatting and source quality (yes I also checked source quality and approve) problems noted and being fixed all fixed Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update All the citations have been given a thorough look-through. I've made changes per User:Fifelfoo's suggestions and comments, and he will later double-check for any further mistakes. Auree ★ 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to thank Hylian Auree for doing so much work on such complex citations. I really am just cleaning up fiddle! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hope Auree plans to become our next resident expert on citations :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks to both of you for all your effort and great help! And who knows, Sandy—I do appreciate high quality and meticulousness. :P Auree ★ 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks to Hylian Auree and thanks to Sandy Georgia. Sometimes you get dobbed in for jobs and they're tiring, hard, painful and worst of all: useless. This job was tiring, hard, painful and highly productive. It was good hard work and I was glad for it. Cite 31 handled brilliantly btw. Cite 36 was a doozy and the kind of bastard citation problem that calls for expert assistance (which was asked for correctly!). Cite 39 is also available as a PDF at the same location, and I suggest that the PDF be used over the .doc as PDF is a more "open" format, and I did that anyway by BOLDness. Cite 39 was a bastard too. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I totally forgot about this FAC. I reviewed it before it was sent to FA, and was quite pleased with it. I am confident that it is the best account on the storm anywhere, and I believe the sourcing problems (if there are any left) are minor enough for this to be promoted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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