Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do. | |||
|
||||
 |
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)
- 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)
- I see the problem with the dates, I'll fix them. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was just kidding.
- 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)
[edit] 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)
