I am nominating this for featured article because it passed a Good-article review fairly easily and with only minor problems. I feel that all of those problems have been corrected (although there may be a few hidden problems) and that this passes Featured-article criteria. If passed, this would be the first tornado outbreak article to be promoted to FA status, so there wouldn't really be a precedent for this page. However, I think this page is ready for FA status. United States Man (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Source for second half of second paragraph of April 27? Most of the second-last paragraph? End of April 28? First paragraph of Smithville? "Surveys indicated high end EF4 damage from the tornado in Birmingham's western suburbs"?
Don't include external links inline
Don't include entries in See also already linked in the article
Why are we including that last section of External links?
Why do some NOAA sources use domain name while others spell out publisher? Why do some NOAA sources spell out what NOAA stands for while others don't? Why do some NOAA sources include the USA.gov publisher while others don't? Check for consistency
Check for consistency in italicization and wikilinking
Where there is no named author, why is the publisher sometimes in the author position and other times in the publisher position?
Compare footnotes 21 and 22.
Oppose and stopping there - significant cleanup and checks for consistency are required. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The majority of these problems were just left when activity died down about two years ago. The reference problems are easy fixes. United States Man (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Now that all of that is taken care of, do you see any problems in the structure of the article. United States Man (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd love to see this article as an FA, since I understand and respect the significance of this outbreak and remember tracking it closely as it was occurring. That said, the article is ill-prepared. Substantial swaths of text (like the entire middle paragraph of the Philadelphia EF5 section and much of the Raleigh EF4 section) are copied word-for-word from the NWS event summaries. While that's not technically illegal, it's still about the laziest way to construct an article on a topic with so many potential sources of info. In the very plausible event that an NWS summary is the best account of a particular tornado, it would be advisable to summarize the info and of course continue to refer to the original source, perhaps with a meta-disclaimer somewhere that "more detailed descriptions have been issued by these NWS offices". For me, a featured article is one that is clearly the most informative and comprehensive description of its subject available anywhere. Currently, this article represents simple copy and pasting from other sources, so it can't reasonably be considered uniquely thorough. Juliancolton (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Delegate comment -- Based on Julian's comment and the nominator's response, this article needs work that should take place outside the FAC process. I'd suggest, once that's taken care of, that the article go through a Peer Review before being renominated at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)