Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Gustav (2002)

Hurricane Gustav (2002)

Self-nomination. Here I am with another article I've worked hard to bring back from the dead. Gustav was a low-impact storm, but there was a surprising amount of information available about it, including some that the original version of this article omitted (quite similar to Hurricane Esther (1961)). I've pretty much finished the article, as I've got all the most important info here, and it's a GA now. Hurricanehink suggested I put it up here, so here it is. :) --Core des at 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink is annoyed that you took his catch phrase :P It's comprehensive and well-written, so Support. Good work on this one. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. CrazyC83 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work on this one guys. Hello32020 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; ~~too many hurricane articles on the FAC page.~~ =) Actually, this is really good. Fix the units though—sometimes metric is in the parenthesis, and other times English is there instead. I'd rather see metric first, but either way, make it consistent. And don't forget to put in   between numbers and abbreviations of units (keeps the line from breaking and stranding a number on the line above its unit). I've fixed a couple of these.

Prose could use a little work too. "Associated" in the first sentence of Storm History is used as a verb, which seems strange. In the next sentence it's used as an adjective. I say change the first one to something a bit clearer. This phrase doesn't make sense: "became extratropical shortly after while over the island." Some people might not know what a "storm-force wind gust" is (link Beaufort Scale or better yet, make it more clear). What does it mean to "nearly disrupt" something? Disruption doesn't imply cancellation (just annoyance), so perhaps "nearly" can be removed. What does "Climatology favors the formation of at least three hurricanes by September 11" really mean? Is that an average or a guarantee or what? Give this a good read over (or get someone else to do it; even better) and fix these and other minor problem areas. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and fixed the problems you brought up, and removed the superfluous external links section (there is already a track map, and the summary doesn't have any information that isn't in any of the references). --Core des at 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"An area of disturbed weather associated with a weak surface trough and a stronger upper-level trough between the Bahamas and Bermuda on 6 September." This is not a sentence if "associated" is used as an adjective—there is no verb. What actually happened on the 6th of September? If "associated" is used as a verb, that's better, but it's an uncommon usage and should be changed (I tried, but was reverted). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very good read. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also to clarify to Spangineer: "associated with" was not meant as a verb, the disturbed weather was effectively "caused" by the trof. It was associated with the trof, it didn't associate with it. – Ch acor 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]