Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates".

content
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The FA director, Raul654—or his delegate, SandyGeorgia—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of Contents
Shortcut:
WP:FAC

Featured content:

Featured article tools:

Toolbox

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the "initiate the nomination" link (for first nominations) or the "leave comments" link (for subsequent nominations). If there was a previous nomination, you will see a link to "previous FAC"; leave that link untouched. If you encounter an unarchived, older nomination at this page, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance in moving and archiving the previous nomination.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination.

Supporting and opposing

Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page).
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used sparingly, because it can cause the FAC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics are discouraged (for example, Y Done or N Not done), as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents

Nominations

Crown Fountain

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (talk), Torsodog (talk)

previous FAC (00:05, 31 March 2008)


I have nominated this twice before and submitted it to WP:PR. User:Torsodog has also submitted this to WP:PR, which is how we met. We have attempted to addresss all actionable concerns from the prior FACs and PRs. Given that this has twice been through FAC and PR, it is difficult determine where to get further editorial assistance. Thus, I return here for further consideration. This is part of the Millennium Park Chicago WikiProject Featured Topic Drive. It is one of the few articles that was a WP:GA before we got 10 promoted in June and July. I could put a WP:LOCE tag on it, but do not recall that getting editorial assistance with any other article I have tried that with.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Candide

Nominator(s): Rmrfstar (talk)


I've been working on this article for a long time, and I'm quite sure that it is ready. It has gone through some very extensive GACs. In any case, I will do my best to respond to objections and criticisms as honestly and quickly as is possible. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I should note that though a recent WP:NOVELS peer review technically occurred, and is mentioned on Talk:Candide, no comments were made. I couldn't wait any longer. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • Double check that all the sources listed in the bibliography are actually used in the article. I noticed that "Cates, David Allan "Comparing Candide and X Out of Wonderland" isn't used as a footnote. Same for the Adorno ref, Asbury ref, Betts ref, etc. I didnt' check them all, you can use your search function in your browser for that. Refs that aren't used as sources can go in a "Further reading" section.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A number of the sources that were listed under the heading "Bibliography" were not mentioned by the in-line references. This was intentional. I don't see why they should be separated from those that are; but I expect I'm in the minority. In any case, I've created the "Further reading" section with all of the extra citations transferred there. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is WP:LAYOUT, if you want to double check. But I'm done here! Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Through the allegory of Candide" - why not just "Through allegory"?
Done.
  • "...; most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism." - reads awkwardly. How about "..., and, most conspicuously, he rails against Leibniz and his Optimism."
Then there would be way too many "and"s.
Too many "and"s? Erm... I don't really have much to say to that, but that doesn't seem much of a reason not to change it to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Candide, Voltaire's magnum opus," - why is it phrased like that? It would seem that such a phrasing would be more fit for the first sentence of an article, introducing the subject. Something like "Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus" would be more appropriate. Two independent clauses would be too much, I expect.
Why are appositives only to be used in the first sentence? I use it here because I want to connect the ideas that Candide is Voltaire's magnum opus, and it has been often mimicked and adapted.
Hm, I'm not sure why it just reads... wrong. Maybe it's just me. This is minor, anyways, so feel free to ignore it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Sometimes you use the serial comma, sometimes not.
Sometimes it is necessary to remove ambiguities, and sometimes it is not, such as in my above response. To quote the MOS, "Both styles are acceptable in Wikipedia, but in a case where including or omitting the comma clarifies the meaning of the sentence, that solution should be adopted." I don't think it says that one style should be maintained for the whole of an article (as should be done with regard to issues of British vs. American spelling).
Really? Huh, that's funny, but I can't see why the serial comma would clarify one sentence better than another or vice versa. I'd still really prefer consistency. Plus, there's also the small chance that the difference would confuse a reader. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Redundancy: "Candide underwent one major revision after its initial publication, in addition to some minor ones."
Some is not necessary here; but it does make more precise how many minor changes were made (i.e. not a lot, but a few). This precision is nice because the article doesn't mention any more about the minor changes; the reader should not think that many, many minor changes were made. Also, the word balances the sentence, IMHO.
To be honest, I've never felt that some implied *any* kind of impression of size or value, but it's your call if you want to keep it in. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Possibly more to come. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India

Nominator(s): =Nichalp «Talk»=


Self nomination – Returning to FAC after two years. Am into amateur radio, so naturally I decided to write on the subject. This is one of my faster production articles, where I wrote this by myself in four days flat, a bulk of the content written in the first two. I could have finished it in less, but for a fork where I thought it was featured list material and is now on FLC. Well cited, covers all the topics, has free images, and decent prose. I've also requested several Indian amateur radio operators (non wiki) to peer review it. Let me know if I have missed anything. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

4X

Nominator(s): Randomran (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article status because there has been no other video game genre article that has reached featured article status. I am occasionally disappointed that most of the featured video games-related topics are about specific games. I think it's about time that we started focusing on topics that define video gaming in general, and that can help readers understand broad game concepts. This article is well-sourced, thorough, accurate, and neutral. I have attempted to get some advice to improve the writing style, and recently took a lot of great advice from a peer review. I believe this article may still need some work, but with your patience and guidance I hope to address every last criticism. Thanks in advance! Randomran (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "HTML" format does not need to be specified every time
    • Question: How often should I use it? Once? Not at all? Randomran (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I suggest to not use it at all for web references. After all, they are web references; it is assumed that they will be in HTML. If they link to PDF pages then specify PDF, though. Gary King (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are seven fair use images on the page; it could be too much, but I'll let others decide on that.
    • Clarification: Two of those seven images are now free images from open source games. Randomran (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, thank you OSS :) Gary King (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Update: I've now reduced the number of copyrighted/fair-use images to 3. The others are free / open source. Randomran (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "Civilization II, a prototypical example of a 4X strategy game." – remove the period from the non-sentence
    • Fixed: I made this into a simple sentence. Randomran (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 05:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy assassination

Nominator(s): Fritzpoll (talk)


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been extensively rewritten since it was listed as being in urgent need of cleanup. Since then, I've taken it through to GA, and the article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited by several other editors. I believe that this article represents the fullest possible account of the topic without going into irrelevant information, and that it is well-written, per the copyediting performed by independent editors. I look forward to any constructive feedback that arises out of this process. Fritzpoll (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy," – remove the link or the bold; linked text can't also be bold, per WP:BOLDTITLE
  • Some of the web references are missing access dates, such as ""Sirhan Sirhan Kept Behind Bars". CBS (March 6, 2003)." and "Warren Kozak (March 17, 2006). "One Common Link". NY Sun."

Gary King (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out - corrected these and one or two other citation formatting errors Fritzpoll (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon (1994)

Nominator(s): Plasticup T/C


I have worked on this article for a hundred edits or so, and I think it is as complete as it will ever be. The prose is polished, the MOS exhaustively consulted, and as far as I know it meets the FAC criteria. Plasticup T/C 17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

*Comment: Some of the refs need to be consolidated as per WP:CITE. See "Using the same citation again", which explains how to use the <ref name=""> command. María (habla conmigo) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Comment withdrawn. The refs are only deceivingly similar. María (habla conmigo) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, phew. You had me scraching my head there. Plasticup T/C 17:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
So sorry! Damn my eyes... María (habla conmigo) 18:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - This is yet another comprehensive meteorogical article. Great job, amd keep it up. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I would never think that anything would go as deep as "Meteorological history of", and yet... Great article, meets all the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewikicitation needed 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • One thing However: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States." I have no idea what this means. Please reduce the jargon in this sentance, or add links. --I'm an Editorofthewikicitation needed 23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added two wikilinks that ought to answer your questions. Plasticup T/C 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ref 31 had an accesscate instead of an accessdate. That is fixed. The pdf that you linked took me a while to find because it is transcluded from Template:Wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_Haiti. I am fixing that now. I also noticed that none of the pdf references have format=pdf in the citations, so I'll be fixing that too. Plasticup T/C 13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The template citations are fixed and the pdfs are marked. Plasticup T/C 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose 1a -

  • Opening sentence is unnecessarily awkward - the whole title of the article need not be written out and bolded. Just "Hurricane Gordon, which lasted thirteen days, was erratic, etc. etc." would be fine. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I really don't think that the opening is awkward, and neither did the FAC reviewers of Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean, Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma, nor Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan, all of which achieved FA status with similar openings. Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I do. Just because other articles have passed with subpar opening sentences doesn't mean every article should. If you like, you can ask a few other prose reviewers on FAC for their opinion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
If you want, sure. I really like the lead as it is now and am going to stand by it. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm going to stand by my oppose unless you agree to change the opening sentence - the opening sentence needs to be grammatically immaculate because it's all most people will read of the article; this one is far from that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A comma after two words is pretty much the definition of awkward. The opening sentence, as it is now, it straightforward and dead simple. The subject is clear and the only commas separate items of a list. Your alternative introduces an unnecessary subordinate clause after just two words. Plasticup T/C 21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Why is "Tropical" in "Tropical depression" capitalised? This kind of thing happens throughout the article. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I count one instance of this. It was in the lead and I have fixed it. The phrase "Tropical Storm Gordon" earns a capitalization because it is a proper noun, much like New York City is not New York city. Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are plenty of places where you write "Tropical Storm" without the "Gordon". Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be difficult, but I just did a case-sensitive search of the article, and every instance of "Tropical Storm" is followed by "Gordon". Maybe I fixed them while making another edit, but in any event I hope that this issue is resolved. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Rechecking, it appears that that's the case. Never mind. I'll respond to the other point soon after another runthrough of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to Category 1 Hurricane Gordon." - why not just "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to [the status of] a Category 1 Hurricane?" - words in brackets are optional. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I'll have a read through for some of these. Doesn't seem like a deal-breaker. Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "The storm's characteristically wandering track" - why not just "The storm's characteristic wandering"? —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
That would work too. I'm sure there are a dozen ways to write it - is yours better than the existing one? Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I always try to make articles a concise as possible - the former method of expressing it seems unnecessarily redundant and lengthy to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I could go either way on this one, so I made the change. Plasticup T/C 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve." - unnecessarily awkward, similar to the bullet two above this one. —This is part of a comment by Nousernamesleft (of 23:12, 25 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I have changed it to "was designated Tropical Depression Twelve" Plasticup T/C 01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The article contains many of the faults demonstrated in the last and third to last points. The unneeded capitalisation is also an issue (albeit a minor one), and the rest of the prose has some other mistakes as well. Give the prose a cleanup and I'll be happy to support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose I'm seeing improvement, but I just read through it closely, and there are still too many prose issues. Some more examples:
  • The thirteen-day meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon was erratic, persistent, and highly unusual. "Thirteen" → "13". —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I think that WP:MOSNUM#Numbers casts this as a choice, but if I am misreading MOSNUM I won't mind changing it. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As a tropical depression it brushed Nicaragua and spent several days in the waters off the country's coast before winding its way north into the Greater Antilles. Run-on-like.
Gotcha. Fixed. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Here Gordon made two more landfalls on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba, while delivering tremendous rains to western Hispaniola. I don't like the presence of the word "here", as the previous sentence mentions nothing of the storm's location. —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
It now reads Executing a slow turn to the north and then the northwest, Gordon made two more landfalls on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba while delivering tremendous rains to western Hispaniola. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As Tropical Storm Gordon made its fourth landfall crossing the Florida Keys, it performed a complicated interaction with an upper-tropospheric cyclone and a series of cyclonic lows which lent the storm some sub-tropical characteristics. Why not just "it interacted with an upper-level tropospheric cyclone..."? "Preformed an interaction" sounds awkwardly worded. —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I wanted to work in the word "complicated", but I can leave that for the full explanation in the body of the article. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph of the lead mentions the name "Gordon" four times. Remember, it's a storm, not a person. —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
It also mentions "storm" twice, "system" once, and "hurricane" once. I have changed one of the "Gordon"s to "the storm", but I don't think that the reader is in any danger of forgetting. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Three of its landfalls were in the U.S. state of Florida. Link U.S. State and Florida. —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
Done. I had wikilinked Florida somewhere else (I remember because I ended up reading the whole Florida article), but it must have come out in one of the revisions. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • During the first week of November a large area of disturbed weather accumulated just north of Panama over the southwestern Caribbean Sea. "Accumulated" is still a poor word choice, but as I know you are inclined to keep it as it is, I will not fuss over it.
  • Moving northwest, the storm began a very slow strengthening pattern[1] and developed a favorable upper outflow. Remove "a".
Yep. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Throughout the article, I see run-on sentences, and just plain sentences with no commas where needed.
  • Eventually a trough prodded Gordon to the north-northeast at 8 mph (13 km/h),[11] and it strengthened slightly to 45 mph (75 km/h) as it moved through the central Caribbean Sea. It's not necessary to mention the exact winds, as it only increased by 5 mph. —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
Okay, I have done this but let me explain the problem. The actual strengthening was 5 knots. If I convert that to mph and km/h I get 5.8 mph and 9.3 km/h. If I round to the integer I get 6 mph and 9 km/h, which is deceptive because the NHC measures wind strengths to the nearest 5 knots. So maybe I should round to the nearest 5? But then I would be saying strengthened by 5 mph (10 km/h), when anyone who knows anything about mi vs km knows that 5 mph is not the same as 10 km/h. Then it looks like I have made an error. So yeah, I thought about this during the original draft, but I'll defer to your suggestion. Current revision reads: strengthened by 6 mph (9 km/h) Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the warm waters, Gordon did not strengthen that day as strong upper-tropospheric shear retarded development,[13][14] eroded the upper level circulation, and reduced the winds to 40 mph (65 km/h). Why not just "Gordon failed to strengthen that day"? —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
Failed implies intent. Also, you lose a whole load of information. There were warm waters, which usually strengthen a tropical system, and there was wind shear, which weakens tropical systems. These factors were in conflict, and the result was very slight weakening. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Through the Greater Antilles" section should be named simple "Greater Antilles". —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
The article is written as a narrative. It tells a story. This story progresses. Movement is one of the story's key elements, and I don't have a problem with it being reflected in the section heading. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • November 13 was a busy day for Tropical Storm Gordon. I'm afraid I still greatly dislike that sentence. —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
I am not being facetious when I say that it is one of my favorite sentences. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • While possible, this view was never accepted by the official hurricane summaries. What official hurricane summaries" —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
The two summaries linked immediately after the full stop: "Preliminary Report Hurricane Gordon 8-21 November 1994" and "Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1994". Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
  • A large ridge of high pressure near the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast increased the pressure gradient around the storm, so although its sub-tropical elements (namely a lack of deep convection) precluded a core of strong winds immediately around the storm's nucleus, strong winds were supported well outside the storm's circulatory center. First, "Mid-Atlantic" is capitalized. Second, a storm does not have a nucleus... —This is part of a comment by Juliancolton (of 14:30, 26 July 2008), which was interrupted by the following:
Agreed on the capitalization, but the word nucleus simply means "center". I use the word "center" later in the same sentence, and needed a synonym. Plasticup T/C 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
You could use "middle", "core", "eye", or even "midpoint". Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Core" is already used in that sentence and the hurricane did not have an eye. "Middle" and "midpoint" are a bit awkward and I don't think that either of them are as precise as "nucleus"