User talk:Mitchazenia/Hurricane Isaac (2006)

Tone issues. Not encyclopedic tone. Don't publish it until fixed. Remove NRL mentions. – Chacor 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Be a little more specific on which ones.Mitchazenia (8200+edits) 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

From my point of view, this article looks pretty good. I think the tone is fine. But for future reference, if there is the same reference in an article more than once, instead of writing it out in each place, you can just write. Good luck! íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 (samtal) 12:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are simple, basic factual errors that riddle this article. What the hell is "Dvorak released its first numbers" supposed to mean? Dvorak isn't an organisation, it's a technique of judging storm intensity. More than one weather service uses Dvorak technique classifications. Clearly there is room for much, much improvement. – Chacor 13:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here:"The strengthening convection caused weather agencies to release its first Dvorak numbers on the system." That look better?Mitchazenia (8200+edits) 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How many times do I have to tell you? It's mostly the organization of the convection that determines Dvorak numbers, not the strength of it. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)