Self-nom. I just finished redoing this article by adding loads of information, and I believe it adheres to the featured article criteria; I think it's well written and it had a copyedit, it is very comprehensive (perhaps too much so, but I'll address that in a moment), every last statement is sourced using {{tl:cite web}}, it is neutral, it's stable as I've been the main person editing it recently, it has a good lede section, good headings, not too long of TOC, images (two of which are Fair use and have fair use rationales), and good length. It might seem like it is too long with unnecessary detail, but I tried to give thorough information on the hurricane to make it more realistic. If an article only gives statistics by saying "The hurricane caused $300 million in damage, destroyed X houses, killed four, etc." it would be boring and not representative of what the storm did. The hurricane is one of Bermuda's worst natural disasters, and I wanted to emphasize that. So, without further ado, Support for it to become an FA. Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on
criterion 3, neither of the fair use images really adds much to this article, neither of those articles is in any way iconic. The only real encyclopedic value to them is the images contained within them, the remainder of them do not add anything. As AP photos they aren't
usable to discuss the storm, the press coverage is not significant enough to justify one let alone two images. I'd rather have no images than two bad FU images, free images of the damage can be obtained.--
Nilfanion (
talk)
18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, which of the two would be better to keep? I think it is better to have at least one damage picture; I checked, and those two are the only images. No free damage pics exist. Or, should I remove both per what you said?
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Only two images?
Sure... If a non-free image is available on Flickr, getting a free image could be as little as an email away. Neither of those newspaper images is particularly useful: No image > bad non-free images (FU criterion 1 is dodgy here)--
Nilfanion (
talk)
21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot about flickr. We should leave the images for now until I get responses to the emails I wrote.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got a response from one; didn't want to.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I haven't gotten another email yet. Assuming they don't allow it, what should we do? I don't want the FAC to fail for the simple matter of an image. Should both of the np images be removed? Just one? Leave them??
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remove both, they aren't that helpful.
Tito
xd(
?!?)
16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- You got it.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- If they reply and agree, you can always add other pics in the future. Tito xd( ?!?) 06:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You got it.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove both, they aren't that helpful.
Tito
xd(
?!?)
16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I haven't gotten another email yet. Assuming they don't allow it, what should we do? I don't want the FAC to fail for the simple matter of an image. Should both of the np images be removed? Just one? Leave them??
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got a response from one; didn't want to.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot about flickr. We should leave the images for now until I get responses to the emails I wrote.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Only two images?
Sure... If a non-free image is available on Flickr, getting a free image could be as little as an email away. Neither of those newspaper images is particularly useful: No image > bad non-free images (FU criterion 1 is dodgy here)--
Nilfanion (
talk)
21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, which of the two would be better to keep? I think it is better to have at least one damage picture; I checked, and those two are the only images. No free damage pics exist. Or, should I remove both per what you said?
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very well made article on a subject that is hard to find information on. Giving my support. Hello32020 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support for becoming the best resource available for an important storm yet difficult to find information on. Good job! CrazyC83 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- 'Weak oppose per
User:Nilfanion. Let's wait until the emails to the flickr image-holders are answered. It won't be the end of the world if this article is promoted a couple of weeks from now. It'll certainly get there, and exacting quality matters more than whether it's there now or in half a month. --
Zantastik
talk
04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I removed those images, given that they either said no or took too long to respond. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, these hurricane FACs seem almost unfailingly good. I don't know about the copyright status of the images; intuitively I would think it's problematic, but I also really like the idea of using newspaper clipping images. I don't think I've seen that done before, and it's a neat way to add an extra dimension to the content. I'm supporting in spite of that lingering issue because I trust that the authors will resolve it correctly. Everyking 08:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. 47 sources on a hurricane I don't recall? My goodness. Very impressive, as usual. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, as the image issue is now dealt with. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, brilliant article, particularly comprehensive. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Self-nom. I just finished redoing this article by adding loads of information, and I believe it adheres to the featured article criteria; I think it's well written and it had a copyedit, it is very comprehensive (perhaps too much so, but I'll address that in a moment), every last statement is sourced using {{tl:cite web}}, it is neutral, it's stable as I've been the main person editing it recently, it has a good lede section, good headings, not too long of TOC, images (two of which are Fair use and have fair use rationales), and good length. It might seem like it is too long with unnecessary detail, but I tried to give thorough information on the hurricane to make it more realistic. If an article only gives statistics by saying "The hurricane caused $300 million in damage, destroyed X houses, killed four, etc." it would be boring and not representative of what the storm did. The hurricane is one of Bermuda's worst natural disasters, and I wanted to emphasize that. So, without further ado, Support for it to become an FA. Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose on
criterion 3, neither of the fair use images really adds much to this article, neither of those articles is in any way iconic. The only real encyclopedic value to them is the images contained within them, the remainder of them do not add anything. As AP photos they aren't
usable to discuss the storm, the press coverage is not significant enough to justify one let alone two images. I'd rather have no images than two bad FU images, free images of the damage can be obtained.--
Nilfanion (
talk)
18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, which of the two would be better to keep? I think it is better to have at least one damage picture; I checked, and those two are the only images. No free damage pics exist. Or, should I remove both per what you said?
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Only two images?
Sure... If a non-free image is available on Flickr, getting a free image could be as little as an email away. Neither of those newspaper images is particularly useful: No image > bad non-free images (FU criterion 1 is dodgy here)--
Nilfanion (
talk)
21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot about flickr. We should leave the images for now until I get responses to the emails I wrote.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got a response from one; didn't want to.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I haven't gotten another email yet. Assuming they don't allow it, what should we do? I don't want the FAC to fail for the simple matter of an image. Should both of the np images be removed? Just one? Leave them??
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remove both, they aren't that helpful.
Tito
xd(
?!?)
16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- You got it.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- If they reply and agree, you can always add other pics in the future. Tito xd( ?!?) 06:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You got it.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove both, they aren't that helpful.
Tito
xd(
?!?)
16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Alright, I haven't gotten another email yet. Assuming they don't allow it, what should we do? I don't want the FAC to fail for the simple matter of an image. Should both of the np images be removed? Just one? Leave them??
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I got a response from one; didn't want to.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Forgot about flickr. We should leave the images for now until I get responses to the emails I wrote.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Only two images?
Sure... If a non-free image is available on Flickr, getting a free image could be as little as an email away. Neither of those newspaper images is particularly useful: No image > bad non-free images (FU criterion 1 is dodgy here)--
Nilfanion (
talk)
21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, which of the two would be better to keep? I think it is better to have at least one damage picture; I checked, and those two are the only images. No free damage pics exist. Or, should I remove both per what you said?
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very well made article on a subject that is hard to find information on. Giving my support. Hello32020 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support for becoming the best resource available for an important storm yet difficult to find information on. Good job! CrazyC83 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- 'Weak oppose per
User:Nilfanion. Let's wait until the emails to the flickr image-holders are answered. It won't be the end of the world if this article is promoted a couple of weeks from now. It'll certainly get there, and exacting quality matters more than whether it's there now or in half a month. --
Zantastik
talk
04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I removed those images, given that they either said no or took too long to respond. Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, these hurricane FACs seem almost unfailingly good. I don't know about the copyright status of the images; intuitively I would think it's problematic, but I also really like the idea of using newspaper clipping images. I don't think I've seen that done before, and it's a neat way to add an extra dimension to the content. I'm supporting in spite of that lingering issue because I trust that the authors will resolve it correctly. Everyking 08:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. 47 sources on a hurricane I don't recall? My goodness. Very impressive, as usual. -- badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, as the image issue is now dealt with. Tito xd( ?!?) 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, brilliant article, particularly comprehensive. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)