# Talk:Hurricane Kenneth (2005)

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write.  This is how the article, as of March 1, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: I believe the segment on the storm history to contain to many technical terms per WP:Jargon. It is good that these terms are wikilinked, but frustrating for the reader to have to click on these links and read the first couple of lines of the article to understand what is being said. However looking at other GA status articles of storms I have seen a similar amount of jargon is used, perhaps a little less as the storms in question did not have as complex a history. As such I have requested a second opinion.
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved.  After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again.  If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice.  Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't straight-forward, I can see why you asked for a second opinion.  You're definitely right that the article contains jargon, though.  From a quick reading, I found the following
Intertropical Convergence Zone,
GFDL,
Banding features (goes to squall)
central dense overcast (goes to eye (cyclone))
eyewall replacement cycle (goes to eye (cyclone)
Point maxima
Yes as MM says, wikilinks should not thinking "oh, if the reader doesn't know what that term means, they can just click on the link".  This is because the linked article A) could be very poorly written, B) could be full of similarly linked jargon, C) could be a redirect somewhere else (as are two of the terms above) and most of all D) doing so completely breaks up the flow for the reader.  As stated in WP:JARGON and WP:Make technical articles accessible each article should be written at an appropriate level for a general audience.  This means avoiding the technical terms not crucial to the point being made, and cleary explaining those that are.
On the other hand, as there are so many specific storm articles, I cringe at the redundancy  that following this guideline would require... but as you can never know which storm article a reader might encounter first, there's really no way to avoid it.  As Wikipedia is not paper, the redundancy isn't a real problem, and the crucial terms above do need to be explained.  Note that the explanation needn't be extensive—clarity here is more important than precision, as the full detail can be found in the wikilinked article.  Just give enough so that a general reader only has to follow the wikilink if they want to. --jwandersTalk 07:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You definately need to further define the terms in the article, even I do not recognize one of them (Point maxima). Otherwise it is a very well structered article, but could use a few more citations in the lead. Keep up the good work! Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The term point maxima was removed after the initial review of the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
All of these should be spelled out, or at least described in some detail now. However, for the record, I agree that banding features and the ITCZ should be described a bit, but I strongly disagree that eyewall replacement cycle and central dense overcast need to be given anything more than a wikilink. These topics are extremely large to be able to be given justice as in-text descriptors. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kenneth (2005). 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 {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.met.fsu.edu/pub/weather/tropical/Outlook-P/2005/Sep/2005091322.ABPZ20
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5f9vkkp2f?url=http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc07/web-61st-IHC-Booklet.pdf to http://www.ofcm.gov/ihc07/web-61st-IHC-Booklet.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kenneth (2005). 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/20080910161627/http://www.weather.gov/directives/sym/pd01006006curr.pdf to http://www.weather.gov/directives/sym/pd01006006curr.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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)