Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 Pacific hurricane season/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 not promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.
1988 Pacific hurricane season edit
Self-Nomination - I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive, has good history of the season's storms, and is other well detailed. It was a successful good article candidate in November 2007 and since been improved even further. Hello32020 (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, with all due respect to the main editor I don't think the substantive oppose comments were ever addressed in the old nom. I still have concerns per criterion 1b; I don't think this article has been thoroughly researched. Someone needs to expand beyond web sources and search news and periodical sources. --Laser brain (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While any further information and research can always help, I believe the article already pases 1b and is comprehensive enough to be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello32020, I have immense respect for the work you have done thus far - it is great - but "comprehensive" is a yes or no proposition. There are no degrees. Something is either broad and complete or it's not. In this case, cursory searches on Lexis Nexis on random storms and hurricanes listed in this article reveal information you haven't covered. Therefore, the article does not meet criterion 1b. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to address your comments, if possible, but I meant "more comprehensive" as being closer to perfect. I do feel it could be improved slightly, but I don't feel anything major is missing and therefore think it is comprehensive. Hello32020 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'll need to do the research or collaborate with another editor who can do the research before you'll be able to tell if anything is missing. Sometimes writing an article needs to be collaborative for this very reason. No article is perfect but they do need to be comprehensive to make FA. The tropical storms project has generated many FAs; surely someone there can point you to research resources. --Laser brain (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to address your comments, if possible, but I meant "more comprehensive" as being closer to perfect. I do feel it could be improved slightly, but I don't feel anything major is missing and therefore think it is comprehensive. Hello32020 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello32020, I have immense respect for the work you have done thus far - it is great - but "comprehensive" is a yes or no proposition. There are no degrees. Something is either broad and complete or it's not. In this case, cursory searches on Lexis Nexis on random storms and hurricanes listed in this article reveal information you haven't covered. Therefore, the article does not meet criterion 1b. --Laser brain (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While any further information and research can always help, I believe the article already pases 1b and is comprehensive enough to be featured. Hello32020 (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make the em dashes unspaced, as per MOS. Tony (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Hello32020 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - quoting Laser, graphic non-subdisfactory. -- MOJSKA 666 - Leave a message here 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.