Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment/1928 Okeechobee Hurricane

Self-nomination as I wrote almost all of this article. However I believe it to be the most complete pre-1950 article outside of 1900 Galveston Hurricane and alongside 1935 Labor Day Hurricane. Jdorje 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• It's very complete, just that the Storm numbers section needs to be merged into the History section. I've did a little bit of that. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Looks good, definitely A-Class. I'd suggest it being sent to Peer review. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Peer review/1928 Okeechobee Hurricane/archive1. Jdorje 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the PR is inactive now, try to raise it to WP:FA status. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's. This one deserves the honor of being an FA. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I nominated it for FA. See Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1928_Okeechobee_Hurricane. Add it to your watchlists if you like. (For now we should have one FAC at a time. So after this one's decided we should go for Floyd or Georges or Ivan.) — jdorje (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work Jdorje. This is now FA #4. I suppose this part of the discussion can be archived? Hurricanehink 16:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it can be. I was thinking of some way that we could more closely integrate this page with the article's talk pages, and I think maybe we should use sub-pages the way PR and FAC does. In that case we'd have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessments/1928 Okeechobee Hurricane and we could add assessed=yes to {{hurricane}} on the hurricane's talk page. Then "archiving" it would just mean removing the template inclusion from this page. — jdorje (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The way you did it is fine for now. There aren't too many possible articles here yet. Hurricanehink 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)