" 

 :Hi. Well, the question of boredom is a thorny one. The FAC criteria do state that the reader should find ""its prose is engaging, even brilliant,"" yet there will always be subjects that are not going to lend themselves to that.  I can well imagine it would be much easier to write the generic hurricane article to featured standard than one about a season. And then there's the question of how the audiences would differ for each of those articles. I would expect 'hurricane' to have a wide readership, whilst a specific season is likely to appeal to a) people with a deep interest in hurricanes and b) people who were affected by the storms. They are two very distinct audiences; the (a) group will be comfortable with all the terminology, but the person who has had their house blown down won't necessarily be.  

 :But it doesn't sit right with me that you should go away thinking ""1991 season cannot be a featured article"". It makes me feel like I've done something bad. (Don't worry, it won't keep me up at nights, but it is making me think). 

 :Perhaps there is a compromise here. As noted, the article isn't as long as many other FACs I've seen, so perhaps in those cases where there was more human interest (ie damage) caused by the storms those sections could be expanded a little. I hesitate to suggest it because it's perhaps bad taste, but in the case of fatalities perhaps an indication could be given of how some of the people met their demise in more detail? Especially if the circumstances were a little odd. If you're not comfortable with that, then I don't blame you, I'm not entirely comfortable with it myself. 

 :A less problematic route would be if there were further details of damage to buildings and infrastructure. Say if a well-known company's HQ were damaged or well-known monuments or museums/galleries etc. You already did that with mention of George Bush's property, maybe a little more of that sort of thing would go a long way. 

 :Perhaps the most demanding thing about FAC criteria is that asks to be both ""complete"" (ie, to give a full account) and be ""engaging"" (which often means talking about people and personalities or at least talking about nature in ways that illicit some emotional response). Very often, giving a full account is bound to include stuff that isn't immediately interesting. Not every bit of every phenomenon can be exciting. 

 :I notice that the good article criteria do not mention being ""engaging"" at all. One way to think about all this, I guess, is that FAs get on the front page so enjoy a wide readership. Can some articles only ever be 'good' because their appeal is not to such a wide audience but are naturally appealing to a smaller demographic? I wouldn't feel happy asserting that but it's something to ponder. 

 :I would be happy to conclude ""some articles are a lot harder to make featured than others"" I guess. And you have chosen a hard one. I think biographies are always easier (not easy, but easier): people relate to people more than they do anything else. 

 :If you do end up making some significant additions to the article (whether inspired by anything I've said or not) then I should notice it on my watchlist. But if you ever want me to, er, review my review(!) - want me to take another look - then don't hesitate to drop me a talk-message.   "