Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:44, 23 February 2007.

[edit] Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma

Here goes nothing. I just published this earlier today to FA criteria, and I believe it is of featured quality. The primary concern a fellow editor had was that it was a little too technical, which I will gladly address. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is very well written, and cited. The images are also used properly. I do have two concerns but they are minor. In the lead, it says October of 2005 with "October" linked. The word "of" is unneeded and I don't think linking "October" provides any context here. My second concern is that some references refer to the "National Hurricane Center" and others to the "NHC". I assume these are the same organization, and should be listed consistantly. I can't help you with the sounding "too technical" because my degree is in Earth Systems, so I understood everything anyway. Other than that, great job. Jay32183 03:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Note 14 uses the numerical number "10", where as the rest of the citations spell the discussion numbers. Needs addressing. Other than that, good work. LuciferMorgan 03:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Good catch, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support Any chance you could put some quick stubs for those few red linked terms? Would be a step in the right direction for making the article more understandable on the technical side. Other than that, looks solid to me. You know Hink, after so many successful FACs, we might want to consider just giving you the right to post your articles straight to the FA list without going through the process. Would certainly save time. (Tongue in Cheek) Fieari 04:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh, thanks. I wikilinked three of them. For the last one, I am a bit unfamiliar with the term, so I requested for the article to be created. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - An excellent article! The only thing I'm slightly concerned about is the reliance on a single source of information: the National Hurricane Center. While they're undoubtedly the authoritative source on all things hurricane, would it not be a good idea to corroborate some of their data with information from other sources? Mexico's Servicio Meteorológico Nacional comes to mind: home page, tropical cyclone archive. --Plek 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand the concern, though nowhere else has as good of information pertaining to the meteorological history of the hurricane. If I were to expand the article to include impact and meteorological statistics, I would certainly include other sources such as Mexico's SMN. Mainly I based it off of Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina, which almost solely uses the NHC (only one ref is not NHC, but rather a sister organization within NOAA). For Wilma, that organization doesn't help. I also checked out the Canadian Hurricane Centre and the Bermuda Weather Service, but neither had something else to add to this topic. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The National Hurricane Center is the official source for data in the North Atlantic; any meteorological information presented by other agencies on hurricanes in the area is either borrowed from the NHC or unofficial and unrecognized by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The WMO has assigned "official" status to certain agencies in each cyclone basin, and the NHC is official in the North Atlantic (as well as the Northeast Pacific). You can read more at Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre. —Cuiviénen 00:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, okay, I suppose you're right about that (mutter, mutter). Anyhow, here are some other things I noticed:
        • "The system continued to organize, with the National Hurricane Center remarking the system could ultimately become a hurricane prior to it becoming a tropical cyclone." — Become a hurricane prior to becoming a tropical cyclone? Pardon my ignorance, but isn't that saying the same thing twice?
        • "By late on 15 October, the surface circulation became well-enough defined, with sufficiently organized deep convection, for the National Hurricane Center to designate the system as Tropical Depression Twenty-Four while located about 220 miles (345 km) east-southeast of Grand Cayman." — I take it the NHC didn't relocate their offices to a somewhat precarious position east-southeast of Grand Cayman to make that announcement. You may want to edit that modifier a bit.
        • "As Tropical Depression Twenty-Four drifted southwestward, it gradually organized; by early on 16 October, rainbands began to gradually consolidate with well-established outflow." — Replace one "gradually"?
        • "Deep convection and banding features increased, as well, though mid-level dry air from the north prevented significant organization, with the convection split into two primary areas." — One comma too many, and the modifier could be clarified somewhat (it's not really clear to me what it's referring to).
        • "... surface buoy reports continued to report minimal winds due to the large size of the system." — Reporting reports. And (again, apologies for my ignorance): did the buoys report minimal winds because the system was so large? Are large systems and high wind speed mutually exclusive? (I assume this is about increasing rotation speed due to contraction, but it could be clarified a bit in the text.)
        • "By early on 17 October," — Spot the redundant word.
        • "and at 0800 UTC Reconnaissance Aircraft" — Capitalization?
        • "As the hurricane moved further inland, the eye became cloud-filled as the deepest convection began to warm, and it gradually weakened during its passage over land." — Is "it" referring to the hurricane or to the convection?
        • "Upon reaching open waters, Reconnaissance Aircraft reported..." — It's them caps again!
        • "Despite wind shear amounts of about 30 mph..." — I'm not sure, but is "amounts" the right word to use? Intensity? Speed? Or, just "wind shear of about 30 mph"?
      • Thanks! --Plek 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Got most of the things. Actually, I don't spot the redundant word in "By early on October 17." It didn't occur in the early hours of October 17, and it didn't occur late on the 17th; it occurred by the morning hours when the discussion was released. For some reason or another, Reconnaissance Aircraft and other variants are generally capitalized. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support given that the concerns above have been addressed. Looks like another winner. --Coredesat 23:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional support, pending mbar figures being converted to inHg parenthetically. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I hadn't thought of that. I got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well written article about an interesting storm. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Reference #32 is...off. I think {{hurdat}} is as well.--Rmky87 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Crap, alright, I fixed it. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.