Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/1933 Atlantic hurricane season

I just finishing doing a complete redo for the article, and it is currently B class. What more should be done with it? Should I GA nom it, and stop there, or should we see how high it can get? Would anyone oppose A class? If it can be higher than GA, should I FAC it? What more can I do to improve the article? Am I asking too many questions??? :D Thanks for any imput. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd include plenty more sections in this article before an FAC run. Its not like 2003PHS, 1933AHS actually had a number of storms that did stuff; sections like in 2004/05 AHS? Remember there is not a predictions section, so have a section on the impact (include any juicy pics there...)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't an impact section be redundant with the storm summaries? Rather than making new sections, wouldn't it be more advantageous to add more to the season summary (like including overall info about preparations and impact)? As it stands, the season summary is a little short. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's on FAC right now. Would anyone oppose A class, given that all it's "missing" is newspaper sources? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hink, I'm uneasy on A-class on the basis that the research which can be done hasn't been carried out. I don't know what's in the newspaper archives for sure, but no attempt to look at them has been made. There are likely some gems in them. However, I can understand there being mostly junk in them, someone saying they have looked and found nothing useful will be enough for me to support A-Class (if not sate a second FAC). Its a good job, but in relying solely on the internet its flawed IMHO.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've looked, but my school library is limited on the newspaper archives, so I'll admit that I can't do it. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Content-wise it's fine now, but it needs to survive the onslaught of Tony. I'll try to ask someone if they can give a fresh look to the article. Titoxd^(?!?) 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, yea. I'm surprised it lasted this long on FAC. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Featured now. However, I'd still like it to receive a more general copyedit. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)