Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Typhoon Paka

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 20:18, 8 March 2008.

---

Typhoon Paka

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I need something to do :) I wrote much of the article within the past year, and I believe it passes most of the FA criteria. I'm not perfect, and I might have missed something, but I'll gladly fix it if you point it out. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It looks pretty good, but there are a couple minor things;
  • Paka also caused light damage in the Northern Marianas Islands, and overall the typhoon caused no reported fatalities. Those two ideas have little to do with each other, and I think they should be seperate sentences.
  • Upon entering the western North Pacific Ocean, tropical cyclone warning duties transferred from the CPHC to the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA), and the JMA first assessed Paka as a 65 km (40 mph) storm. Maybe I'm wrong, but should "duties" be more encyclopediac as "responsibilities"?
• But for the most part, it looks good. Juliancolton (Talk) 13:28 1, March 2008 (UTC)

• • Regarding the first sentence, though they don't have much to do with each other, those two sentences are needed, and having them combined would be better than having two very short sentences. Regarding the second one, saying "tropical cyclone warning responsibilities", is largely the same as what is currently there, with the exception that "responsibilities" is four syllables longer than "duties". ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Article has terrific storm history, its impact is well detailed, and the aftermath is also very comprehensive. Hello32020 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support I guess it's good enough to get my support. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 01:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Afetr going through and correcting only a few minor errors i feel this article is good enough for FA. Very informative, well sourced, well structured and complies with WP:MOS. Seddon69 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Notes: see WP:DASH and WP:MOSNUM, these endashes should be unspaced: Paka dropped 250 – 300 mm (10 – 12 in) of rain. Also, these: an estimated 30 – 40 percent of ... Also, please be consistent throughout the article with use of either % or percent (see WP:MOSNUM). The line above this one uses %. Incorrect use of bolding in Aftermath. The external link checker (see top of FAC) identifies a dead link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected the points you have raised, is there anything else you have noticed. Seddon69 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.