Talk:Hurricane Ismael

Retirement
Should the section about the retirement of Israel be in this article? Perhaps it should go under Hurricane Israel (disambiguation). - Cuivienen 23:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Since there has never been a storm named Israel (AFAIK), the disambiguation is not needed. Mention of it should go either here or in the season article (or both). Jdorje 00:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Todo
Better intro. Better structuring of "trivia" - the retirement paragraph is basically all trivia anyway. More on impact (there are only 2 short paragraphs). Jdorje 07:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this B class yet? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At the very least. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 17:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So... is it still a start? It's still rated a start-class. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yea. Whoops. :) íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 20:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

GA nom passes
I have reviewed the article, and found it complaint with the GA criteria, although the referencing, especially in the lead section, could be better. However, the overall quality is consistent with what constitutes a GA on Wikipedia. RyanG e rbil10 (Упражнение В!) 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow what a disappointment
This bland article is now a featured article, despite the fact that is doesn't stand out in any way whatsoever. It doesn't pass the random article test ie could you click random article and not find a better, more interesting article 3-4 times out of ten? Nope. It needs more personal accounts and some pictures of the damage something to make it stand out and not look it was printed out of a Printing press. I see there are several Hurricane articles that are featured I haven't read many but Katrina is solid and interesting (obviously) however if the rest are like this then it's a shame as they are run of the mill and get passed because no one really cares enough to demand more. I strongly disagree with whatever admin promoted this. Harvey100 03:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you disagree, complain elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't here to entertain you or be interesting to everyone. It's supposed to be encyclopediac and informative. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason it doesn't impress me at all is because it doesn't go the extra mile ever, not once, (less than or equal negative zero times), there is not one single piece of impressive information anywhere in the article that makes me think someone really worked hard on this. It doesn't feel like the final source for information on the subject either. Other articles you read and say wow this person really got a ton of information, interesting quotes, photos, details, look at any of DCGeist's articles for an example such as Mutual Broadcasting System. Keep in mind while you complain about sources that the same author wrote B Movie to it's current state (albeit overlong state look at it in December when it was passed FA), while admitting he wrote it because there wasn't even a single feature length book on the subject, and all he saw was a bunch if incorrect information all over the internet. Even if you think it's currently overlong, either version is impressive not just in length, but in depth of fascinating detail.  Harvey100 08:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said, if you disagree, complain elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be interesting - if it is, that's good. Wikipedia, and featured articles in general, are about factuality and comprehensiveness primarily. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One point, a usable picture of damage from this storm is more than merely difficult. Finding any sort of picture at all would not be an easy exercise in itself (due to the age and location). Finding a free picture is likely to be all but impossible for another 70 years, and any copyrighted images would likely not be usable under a valid fair use claim...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG, should be banned from Wikipedia? I can't even begin to explain the problems with that statement. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah so I got carried away Brute, if you're going to ignore the rest of my comments in an ad hominem manner go ahead. They still stand, these Hurricane FA's are being pumped out of a generic Printing Press and look like a dedicated student could build one from scratch over the course of a weekend at the most. If you don't like DCGeist's use of photos (if that is what you're referring to) don't be afraid comment on the Mutual Broadcasting rfa, Nilfanion. Harvey100 06:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you taking this article so personally? Like I said twice before, and I'll say it again, complain elsewhere if you disagree. Look at its FAC. Majority of the people supported, and the RFA director agreed as well that it was featured worthy. So what if Hurricane Fa's are coming out quickly. If they are "built from scratch over the course of a weekend", which I have done in the past, what is the harm verses whether it took months to write it? Nilfanion said it would be very difficult to find images, he did not say he didn't like the use of photos. Have you ever looked at other hurricane articles? Most others that struck the United States or other more recent ones have more information and some pictures. Try this or this, for example. You want the rest of your comments addressed? Fine. First, I already responded to you that bland articles are OK, it's about factuality and comprehensiveness. So, the random article test doens't really work here as you're comparing two different subjects (FA's and non-FA's). Personal accounts aren't appropriate for such an article. This is about the overall aspects of the storm. This is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Once more, if you disagree, complain elsewhere, not here. This page is for improving the article, not degrading it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article is a meteorological event, comparing this to an article on a radio station is comparing chalk to cheese. In the context of an article on a radio station fair use imagery is fairly easy to justify, in the context of this article it isn't in the same manner. After all a damage photo would something like a fallen tree or damaged building; there no purpose to that except decoration really, which is something explicitly banned by the Fair Use criteria. Remember FA relates to how the subject is covered: a subject with less to say about it will inevitably have a smaller article, FA rates how good that prose is and if its of appropriate length.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * God you people are slow or just willfully ignorant. You're willfull misunderstanding of my arguments is comical. The ad hominem (there I linked it look it up) implication that I want to to make this ultra weak article some kind of a entertainment piece, and am some kind of Rex Reed is ludicrous. It just needs something to make it stand out (anything). Yeah I'm the one with the problem, Oh actually me and the other two people who raised the 100% exact same concerns (verbatim I think). Yes some people liked it (5-6 if I recall correctly) but at least 3 didn't. It's generic and you still have yet to show me one (just one, literally I'm begging you) really impressive part of the article (anything for crying out loud). Also if this is thorough (no pictures, no particular accounts of of the storm's devastation, nothing but numbers and meteorological charts, no historical narrative about the regions affected, no background) then I'm Donald Trump. Oh, and personal attacks against me implying I want to make "entertaining" articles is a weak way of masking the fact that you weren't able to distiugish this article in any way. After all you're not suggesting we remove all the interesting things from the Katrina article are you? Oh, no you're not. Well then you do like the decorative stuff then, or else "the decorative stuff" is actually essential and necessary for a thorough article. So your argument amounts to "but that would have been real, real hard to find, and it would have slowed down our printing press that prints out these abysmal Hurricane FA's at a rate of about 2x a day." Do I have that correct. Harvey100 03:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr. Trump, please be civil. If you disagree, complain elsewhere. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Mr. Trump" is civil? I live in America and I can call a turd a turd and this article's a turd in it's current state (Unless Wikipedia doesn't practice free speech). I've given advice on how to make it better and it's been ignored. Here's the FAC so people can see others felt the exact same thing, the vote was 5-3 hardly consensus. Harvey100 16:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You said yourself, "Also if this is thorough (no pictures, no particular accounts of of the storm's devastation, nothing but numbers and meteorological charts, no historical narrative about the regions affected, no background) then I'm Donald Trump." Well, it's thorough since none of those are available/needed/useful in the article, so you said yourself you're Donald Trump. You might live in America, but you're working on Wikipedia, where you are supposed to respect each other and avoid personal attacks. I'll say it once again, if you disagree, complain elsewhere. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * When people continually refer to me as some sort of Rex Reed and purposefully misunderstand me because they have no answer for the fact that a) the article's too short to be comprehensive, b) there are no pictures of the damage, and c) there is no in-depth coverage that is really impressive, it's laughable and ridiculous. Besides when an article passes with a vote of 5-3 with two very strong and obvious opposes expect people to be upset. If you editors are upset that people are going to come to this talk page and see that some Wikipedians are very disappointed with this article being an FA that's too bad. Harvey100 16:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not referring you as anything. Just stop complaining here and do something about it if you truly disagree! Have you considered we don't care about your opinion? Like I've said four times before, there are other places you can complain, such as Featured article review. Please stop discussing this here. If not, I will request for comment. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction you don't care about the opinions myself and several other people when it comes to improving this article, which is obvious. I've noticed looking through several other Hurricane and Tropical Storm FAC's that many, many people have raised the same concerns. Harvey100 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I've said five times before, there are other places you can complain, such as Featured article review. Please stop discussing this here. If not, I will request for comment. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hurricane Ismael. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090831170642/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov:80/1995ismael.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1995ismael.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Ismael. 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/20061111164213/http://www.proteccioncivil.gob.mx/upLoad/Publicaciones/ised_80_89.pdf to http://www.proteccioncivil.gob.mx/upLoad/Publicaciones/ised_80_89.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129132838/http://www.ine.gob.mx/dgicurg/cclimatico/download/cancun_analisis_costos.pdf to http://www.ine.gob.mx/dgicurg/cclimatico/download/cancun_analisis_costos.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110519223635/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E223386 to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E223386

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Ismael. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~223386
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090831170642/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1995ismael.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1995ismael.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Ismael. 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/20100903235514/http://www.cndh.org.mx/recomen/1996/064.htm to http://www.cndh.org.mx/recomen/1996/064.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100903235514/http://www.cndh.org.mx/recomen/1996/064.htm to http://www.cndh.org.mx/recomen/1996/064.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

 * A little bit of academic literature here (check through multiple pages)
 * Duplicate links
 * Alt text needed

Leaving notes here; CCI check not done. Noah Talk 22:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)