Self-nom. I feel this is ready. It is a bit biased, I guess, because I worked greatly on this article, but I think it adheres to the qualifications for FA. Hurricanehink 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. Short, but concise. I feel the aftermath section could be expanded and explained better, and referenced more thoroughly.
RyanG
e
rbil10
21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is a little short, there aren't as many references, so I'm not sure how to reference more thoroughly. Is the aftermath section better?
Hurricanehink
01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Full Support. I guess I was just a little taken back by the content of the section, Hurricane Katrina is still fresh in my mind. I think I've actually grown used to the death and destruction, and when I failed to find any in the aftermath section here, I guess I was a bit incredulous. Oh well, that's just how it goes sometimes. RyanG e rbil10 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is a little short, there aren't as many references, so I'm not sure how to reference more thoroughly. Is the aftermath section better?
Hurricanehink
01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. It's a little short, but gives plenty of information. Well written article. WotGoPlunk 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, it is short, but it is also well-written and stable. Remember, length is not a part of the criteria! :) — Eternal Equinox | talk 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. It is short, but it is concise, informative, stable, accurate, neutral, and comprehensive up to where it can be done. It also has gone under a significant amount of scrutiny, and it conforms to the standards set by the relevant WikiProjects. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per above. -- § Hurricane E RIC § Damages archive 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per all. It's long enough to cover the subject in detail; any longer and it would feel padded. — Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:38 ( UTC)
- Support, covers its subject well. Good referencing and images too. — Spangineer [es] (háblame) 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per above. — jdorje ( talk) 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support don't know if it was changed from the earlier votes, but as of this writing, I'm actually amazed by the number of ref's for an article of this length... it's incredible. -
M
ask
18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC) - Strong support. Very detailed for a 14-year-old storm, and no real disputes or speculation - very informative. CrazyC83 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely yes for another great piece of work. NSL E ( T+ C) at 00:56 UTC ( 2006-03-23)
- Support for the same reasons as everyone else. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Self-nom. I feel this is ready. It is a bit biased, I guess, because I worked greatly on this article, but I think it adheres to the qualifications for FA. Hurricanehink 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak support. Short, but concise. I feel the aftermath section could be expanded and explained better, and referenced more thoroughly.
RyanG
e
rbil10
21:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is a little short, there aren't as many references, so I'm not sure how to reference more thoroughly. Is the aftermath section better?
Hurricanehink
01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Full Support. I guess I was just a little taken back by the content of the section, Hurricane Katrina is still fresh in my mind. I think I've actually grown used to the death and destruction, and when I failed to find any in the aftermath section here, I guess I was a bit incredulous. Oh well, that's just how it goes sometimes. RyanG e rbil10 22:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Because it is a little short, there aren't as many references, so I'm not sure how to reference more thoroughly. Is the aftermath section better?
Hurricanehink
01:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. It's a little short, but gives plenty of information. Well written article. WotGoPlunk 17:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, it is short, but it is also well-written and stable. Remember, length is not a part of the criteria! :) — Eternal Equinox | talk 17:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. It is short, but it is concise, informative, stable, accurate, neutral, and comprehensive up to where it can be done. It also has gone under a significant amount of scrutiny, and it conforms to the standards set by the relevant WikiProjects. Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 22:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per above. -- § Hurricane E RIC § Damages archive 22:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per all. It's long enough to cover the subject in detail; any longer and it would feel padded. — Cuivi é nen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:38 ( UTC)
- Support, covers its subject well. Good referencing and images too. — Spangineer [es] (háblame) 23:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support, per above. — jdorje ( talk) 08:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support don't know if it was changed from the earlier votes, but as of this writing, I'm actually amazed by the number of ref's for an article of this length... it's incredible. -
M
ask
18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Very detailed for a 14-year-old storm, and no real disputes or speculation - very informative. CrazyC83 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
- Definitely yes for another great piece of work. NSL E ( T+ C) at 00:56 UTC ( 2006-03-23)
- Support for the same reasons as everyone else. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)