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 by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 [1].

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite not being as long as my last several nominations, this article may be one of my best. I personally find the storm fascinating, so I've spent an inordinate amount of time polishing the article over the past year, and the result is something I'm quite proud of. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed it for GA status, so I think it's appropriate that I also review it for FAC, especially in light of the changes you've made.

• "Despite being plagued by strong disruptive wind shear" - seems a bit excessive. If you cut out "strong", the meaning still applies, and the sentence reads better.
• Great prose in the MH. It makes sense to me, but it should get a read through by a layman to make sure it's understandable.
• Your call, but when you mention Fabian in 03, it might help to say that the storm passed nearby or something. The implication in the first half of the article is that Fay was the strongest storm to affect Bermuda since Emily, but you are only focusing on the landfall. I'm not sure how you want to deal with that though.
• "Indeed, in a report to the World Meteorological Organization, the Bermuda Weather Service speculated that all insurance claims totaled "tens of millions of dollars"" - this is from Fay alone, right? Was there a combined damage total?
• I also did an image review. The storm images are NASA, they're good. The track map generator is PD, as always for every TC article, so that's good. And the yacht damage is creative commons, also correctly done and noted.

All in all a great read! I'm happy to support it now, as my comments are very minor, and the images are good. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review and kind words! I made several changes that should have taken care of the things you mentioned, plus a few other minor issues I came across. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – A well-written, and in-depth article on a damaging storm that was quickly overshadowed by its "big brother". No complaints on my end so I'm happy to support. As with any nomination, I'd suggest adding alt text to the images. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for the review. I've made my feeble attempt at adding alt text... you might like to check and see that it's satisfactory. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. All tropical storms articles are somewhat technical; I thought this one struck a nice balance. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - goddamn...I have to resist the temptation to change all the names....but good news is they're all consistent. Some ref titles are in sentence case and some in title case...choose one and forever hold yer peace....otherwise all good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check pending....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

earwig's good

using this version for reference for ref numbers etc:

FN 1 used 4 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.

FN 13 used 2 times - material in source and faithful to source without copyvio. all good.

FN 12 used 5 times - I don't see in the source where the time of the watch was given. Otherwise all other items in source and faithful to source without copyvio.

Oops, just saw this now, sorry about that! Hylian Auree was kind enough to help identify and fix a bunch of source formatting issues earlier this week, so I think this should all be taken care of now. Thanks for taking a look Casliber. (And yeah, the names are a bad habit... I can easily switch 'em over if needed.) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately as long as they are internally consistent it's no big deal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the person who got this article to GA, I like that changes that have been made since then and agree that this should be a Featured Article--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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