The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because there wasn't that much activity in the last FAC, so a consensus could not be formed. Hopefully the second time around is a bit better. Gary King ( talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Image review: All images appear to be fine. -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi Gary, I was wondering if you had access to ProQuest. I do, and if you need anything, I can provide text of articles for you. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support For the record, I made some copy-edits to the article but had no further role in its development. I am satisfied about the article's comprehensiveness, no outstanding prose and MOS issues remain, I trust that all images check out fine according to Moni3, and Ealdgyth said that sources looked OK at the previous FAC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Tony
(talk)
13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)—1a. My impression that it's a workaday topic wouldn't matter so much if it were better-written. Here are examples from a few random windows of the text. They indicate that a thorough massage is required by someone completely new to the article.
reply
The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [1].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because there wasn't that much activity in the last FAC, so a consensus could not be formed. Hopefully the second time around is a bit better. Gary King ( talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
– Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Image review: All images appear to be fine. -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Hi Gary, I was wondering if you had access to ProQuest. I do, and if you need anything, I can provide text of articles for you. Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Support For the record, I made some copy-edits to the article but had no further role in its development. I am satisfied about the article's comprehensiveness, no outstanding prose and MOS issues remain, I trust that all images check out fine according to Moni3, and Ealdgyth said that sources looked OK at the previous FAC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Oppose
Tony
(talk)
13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)—1a. My impression that it's a workaday topic wouldn't matter so much if it were better-written. Here are examples from a few random windows of the text. They indicate that a thorough massage is required by someone completely new to the article.
reply