Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/February 2009 tornado outbreak/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 by Steve 22:46, 29 June 2009 [1].

February 2009 tornado outbreak

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA standards. Although the event was relatively recent, February this year, the final reports on the event from the National Climatic Data Center have been released. The article may be long, but it should be fully comprehensive for the entire event. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not long at all...only 39% of the maximum word length recommended per the page size toolbox. You may need to add convert templates to convert acres to hectares, both otherwise you appear to have the imperial/metric equivalents all listed. Per my recent experience with the Wind FAC, you're going to need to pick a format for your references. Either pick Surname, FirstName or FirstName, Surname for all your references, and make sure they all have authors. Consistency is paramount, despite the article's content. I dickered around with the reference section for over half the time wind was at FAC. Just an early comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note DR :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Everything looks fine (it helps when they all come from the same PD source!). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Steve :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hey Cyclonebiskit, you should take a look at this. Heres the final survey on the Grove tornado and it is saying that it went through three counties and not four.[2] The information on the main article is refereneced by what I think are preliminary tracks and info. While I would enjoy getting this promoted to FA, I think you may have pulled the trigger on this too early. Showtime2009 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -
What makes the following reliable sources?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've decided to withdraw this nomination after thinking it over. As Showtime said, I probably jumped the gun with this article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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