Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma

Class

Not a bad start, and I'd give it a B if it wasn't for one thing. The lead is excessive, both in length and level of detail, three short paras comparable to that in Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina would be better. In particular, most of the technical prose and the windspeed figures should not be needed in the lead. Other issues are relatively minor, but could do with addressing before GAC/FAC. The prose is overly technical in general, an eye to simplifying it throughout would be beneficial. Diffluence is not a concept restricted to meteorology; there's no need for (meteorology) in the redlink. The dates are also badly formatted. A final thought, just satellite imagery isn't good; a bit of variety would be better (IIRC I raised this with the Katrina article). Perhaps I should make an animation for the FL landfall from NEXRAD?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, start class? Is that just to spite me? Very well, I addressed the lede and some other little things. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, not to spite you - to make you fix something that needed it. B now, I wouldn't raise to A without getting more opinions first. I'd be against that until the dates are sorted.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I was just kidding. What is the problem with the dates? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem with the dates, I'll fix them. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What about combining first and second landfalls and putting demise on its own? Or maybe split second and demise and make them their own sections? Good kitty 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Demise is only one paragraph, so I don't really see a need to split it off. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It does not seem right that this is a featured article. I think it sould be delisted until it is expanded a bit. Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your viewpoint. This is far from the shortest FA on enwp; consider the fact that there are no length requirements for FA, other than that they have to be comprehensive. How long a "comprehensive" article is depends on the availability of sources and how in-depth they are. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CancunRadar.gif

Image:CancunRadar.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The image was released by NOAA, which did not specify a copyright. Per http://www.weather.gov/disclaimer.php, The information on government servers are in the public domain, unless specifically annotated otherwise, and may be used freely by the public. I don't know much about image licencing tags, but maybe it should be changed to PD rather than Fair Use. Plasticup ^T/C 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking within the article

This is an article which passed FA four years ago, when we wikilinked everything and anything under the sun. The wikilinking does not satisfy MoS criteria at this time, particularly regarding redirects and overlinking. The good news is that there is no linkrot, so these issues are of the nuisance variety. I'm going to give it a week for someone else to fix the remaining issues, or I'll send it to FAR. I had to check it over myself to be sure, but if it doesn't pass FAR, it falls to B class, not GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether we need to link some things once in the lead, and once further down. Some links, like eyewall replacement cycle, seem pretty crucial to understanding the chronology of the event, so I left it and some other jargon-like terms linked twice. I'm also wondering if we should simply delink all city/place names, other than the key ones (Cozumel should stay, etc). Juliancolton (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I did some work on the top third of the article...and the overlinking was for terms such as NHC, recon, the TC article, and place names, not to mention the usual redirects (Atlantic hurricane to NATC, an issue I fixed). I have no problem with linking to places on their first occurrence, which is one of the guidelines for wikilinking non-locations. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the problems from four years ago. I was young and naive. The good news is that mere overlinking is not in violation of the FA criteria. I'm rather busy this week, but I'll try to tackle it tomorrow or on the weekend. Thanks for the heads up about it though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625083435/http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2005/rt2005a.pdf to http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2005/rt2005a.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CUaoilHq?url=http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2005/atlantico/wilma.pdf to http://smn.cna.gob.mx/ciclones/tempo2005/atlantico/wilma.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

• Duplicate links
• Reference formatting is inconsistent
• Needs alt text
• Quite a bit of meteorological coverage from the academic world that is not included here.

Listing at WP:FARGIVEN per the above. Noah^Talk 14:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

CCI check not done. Noah^Talk 14:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)