Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of North Carolina hurricanes (1900–1949)
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted 22:48, 10 April 2008.
I just published this article this morning, based on other similar hurricane FL's (List of Florida hurricanes (1900-1949) and List of North Carolina hurricanes (1950-1979), specifically). It finishes the series of North Carolina hurricanes, and I believe it passes all of the FL criteria; if you find any problems, I'll be happy to address them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Image in lead needs
thumband caption. - 9 seasons - nine seasons.
- "In the 1916 season, five storms affect the state, which is the season with the most storms impacting the state." - "...five storms affected the state which makes it the season with most storms" or similar.
- Lead is written in a curious present tense. Surely this is in the past? The other sections, fine, I get it, but not the lead.
- Link Tennessee.
- For, say, the 1903 Vagabond hurricane, state the name explicitly rather than pipe to hurricane - non-experts may just ignore the link thinking it's going to plain old hurricane.
- " all people on Ocracoke " -what does this mean?
- Don't force thumbnail image sizes per WP:MOS#Images.
- " 41 feet" - convert.
- Centrally align Number in table.
- Why do unnamed hurricanes link to articles with names? Not necessarily official names, but better to have their colloquial name than nothing.
- All deaths direct so why discuss indirect deaths? This won't change, it's 60 years ago!
That should be enough to start with! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick response. I got all of that, except for centrally align Number in table, which I don't know how to do. The table was already marked with the command center. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I've done the central alignment, check out my last edit to see what I did. Oh, and you've remove the discussion about direct/indirect deaths but left "direct" in the table. I'd add a note to say all deaths were direct, explaining what that means, and then just have numbers in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok, thanks again. Is there anything else that needs to be done before you would support it? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I've done the central alignment, check out my last edit to see what I did. Oh, and you've remove the discussion about direct/indirect deaths but left "direct" in the table. I'd add a note to say all deaths were direct, explaining what that means, and then just have numbers in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick response. I got all of that, except for centrally align Number in table, which I don't know how to do. The table was already marked with the command center. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The purpose of date wikilinking is to enable user preferences to apply to the format, not to link to an article on that date in history. Therefore the usual "link once per section" rule doesn't apply and you should repeat-link the year. To see the problem, change your date preferences to "16:12, 15 January 2001" You will see that the "," appears between the day-month and the year when you don't wikilink the year, but is elided when you do. The problem is even worse on date formats where the year is at the front.
- I assume the charts and tables are based on the data collected within the list itself, so if another hurricane is found (or removed), these need updated. You may want to leave a note to that effect on the talk page. Colin°Talk 11:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I got them. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Beautiful article. I do believe, FL and FTC are both in order. Go for it, Hurricanehink...Also, maybe possibly add a photo to the 1900s/1910s sections, maybe just a track map, but something to imagify the article. Otherwise, great job!Mitch32contribs 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrific writing as with all of the others, definitive support. Hello32020 (talk) 03:12, 6 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.