Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Category 5 Pacific hurricanes/archive1

Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

This article fails the current standards as it is missing Hurricane Celia (2010), which had to be either a GA or FA by the end of September, and remains neither. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rule you gave for tropical cyclone articles was that you'd wait three months after the tropical cyclone report was released. Often, a TC article can't get to GA or FA status until that report comes out. Celia's report came out only a few weeks ago. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right; I just saw the failed GAN and FAC and it slipped my mind. In that case this can serve as a supplementary nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to nominate Celia for GAN? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well GA nom it now, gonna be a while before it's reviewed probably. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to review it. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went and nommed it for you, but you guys will have to do the review fixes; to avoid COI issues I'm not touching it during the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a supplemental nom, as it's now a GA. Any support or opposition? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support. This is a classic hurricane speedy pass. Why would somone oppose this? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support Z gin der 2010-11-10T03:29Z (UTC)
Support, no problems. --Pres N 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support though this will mean demotion from FT to GT. Courcelles 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to keep; demoted from FT to GT due to featured/good count. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]