Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1999 Sydney hailstorm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 03:02, 26 November 2007.
This article was 'promoted' to GA status late last month. Since then, it has had a peer review (which was closed yesterday without any real input, Wikipedia:Peer review/1999 Sydney hailstorm/archive1, although the bot gave me a couple of minor things to do), and I have worked on it further since then to try and complete the article with everything I feel was relevant and able to be sourced.
The end result looks pretty good, albeit through the very-biased eyes of the author. Throwing it open to you guys for your input and evaluation. Daniel 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There should be no refs in the lead, if possible. As far as I can see, all of those are reused elsewhere in the article, so I think they should be removed from the lead. Daniel, if you read this, my MSN awaits... Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)- Only concern, thus support. Dihydrogen Monoxide 01:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- That's incorrect, see WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section. You need to either cite everything in the lead, or cite nothing, at the authors' discretion. References feature in most leads of featured articles, although there is the option of not having them. Daniel 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just for the record: from the last batch of FAC promotions, see Florida Atlantic University, Archimedes, Peregrine Falcon etc.) Thanks very much for the support! :) Daniel 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's incorrect, see WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section. You need to either cite everything in the lead, or cite nothing, at the authors' discretion. References feature in most leads of featured articles, although there is the option of not having them. Daniel 01:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've trimmed quite a bit of fat off the text, and need to muse upon it whether there can be further improvement. There was quite a bit of redundancy and repetition, where a good thesaurus may come in handy. I am tempted to support now but am in two minds as the writing is has alot of facts and figures and is a little dry but then so is the subject matter. I feel the article would be nice with some more descriptive elements, first hand reports of hail etc. though I am not sure what is available. I am sorry I can't be more precise but will look on it some more later and wait. If other more critical folk are satisfied with the prose then I may consider that part done cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw your copyedit - thanks very much, it looks a lot better now. The problem with a bit of 'spice' is that I'm struggling to find sources which do more than report dry facts (which, as you noted, is because this isn't the most inspiring type of subject matter), otherwise I would have added it. Thanks once again for all your copyediting and fixes which kept lighting up my watchlist (while simultaneously bringing a smile to my face). Cheers, Daniel 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes you wonder how far back digital online subs for the smh go and whether there'd be something there (or a trip to the library to look on microfiche...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never actually used stuff like that, so if you could have a look for me, that'd be great. Daniel 02:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I doubt I'll have the time for it, sorry. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, thanks anyways for the copyedit which the article desperately needed. Daniel 01:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I doubt I'll have the time for it, sorry. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never actually used stuff like that, so if you could have a look for me, that'd be great. Daniel 02:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes you wonder how far back digital online subs for the smh go and whether there'd be something there (or a trip to the library to look on microfiche...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw your copyedit - thanks very much, it looks a lot better now. The problem with a bit of 'spice' is that I'm struggling to find sources which do more than report dry facts (which, as you noted, is because this isn't the most inspiring type of subject matter), otherwise I would have added it. Thanks once again for all your copyediting and fixes which kept lighting up my watchlist (while simultaneously bringing a smile to my face). Cheers, Daniel 02:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, comprehensive, as DMHO. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent work. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, definitely improved since I last reviewed the article. Definitely featured article quality. Great work :) Spebi 07:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.