Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result February 23, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

An entry from Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 February 2007.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

[edit] 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)