From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Frances has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 6, 2008 Good article nomineeListed
April 16, 2009 Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

New article

I would have waited until September 1. But I think Frances has made it clear that it's going to do something eventually. -- Cyrius| ✎ 22:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I kinda like the infobox, but what would we have in it after the storm's gone? Nuke it? And should it be put in all major storm articles? -- Golbez 05:02, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I'm more worried about people littering images around that are going to be of no use once the storm's over. We're not going to want the storm track image in a week, people. -- Cyrius| ✎ 11:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Getting ready

Okay, it looks like Frances will come pretty close to me just like Charley. I will try to get some NEXRAD picture again, when it comes ashore. Awolf002 03:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Where are you, now? I'm in Tampa. Mike H 03:15, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Lakeland... Having fun, yet? Awolf002 03:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I sure am glad nothing's come towards me this season. -- Cyrius| ✎ 03:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We're on the other side of it so we're functioning as normal. If school closings need to be added to the article, the University of Central Florida have canceled classes for the rest of the week, and not only have the University of North Florida canceled classes, they have asked all the students to evacuate the dorms completely. Mike H 12:23, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Please, no school closings. That information's too low-level and of transient interest. -- Cyrius| ✎ 14:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The information can be removed after the fact. This stuff affects tens of thousands of people and needs to be reported. Mike H 18:33, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a news site. It's just very very up to date. -- Cyrius| ✎ 15:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You're right. Let's report the important stuff — and after the fact. Awolf002 14:28, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I heard this morning that Polk County will suspend school, Friday. This thing is pretty big and will send us tropical storm winds over here, regardless of where it's going. Awolf002 13:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, definitely. My point is that Hillsborough and Pinellas won't be on the brunt of the storm, even when it passes over the state. It seems like it'll head to our north. Like Hernando and Pasco. It's not much to the north but it's enough to spare lots of damage. Mike H 13:06, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Right. Still, cross all the fingers you've got!! Awolf002 13:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey! What about me? I'm heading to Disney World on the 9th. I hope nothing happens on my vacation -- Tornado Kid 17:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) (a.k.a. WikiPediaAid)

Mmhhh... The NEXRAD picture does not look very instructive right now. We might just want to use a visible pix for the point in time when it makes landfall in FL. Or something completely different Awolf002 19:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's because the center's on the edge of NEXRAD's effective range. It shows up, but not very well. Between the radars in Miami and Melbourne, I think we can get a decent image if Frances holds together. -- Cyrius| ✎ 19:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the Melbourne radar seems to show some nice resolution of the center. I will concentrate on that one tonight. Awolf002 15:09, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that the eye looks enormous because it is. NHC says 70 nmi. The other radar to watch is the one in Miami, although it's a bit further from the expected landfall location. -- Cyrius| ✎ 15:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Storm forecasting thread

Here's an ongoing real-time forecast discussion thread on Frances from the storm chase community: [ Stormtrack]

Storm Track

I vote to remove the predicted strom track! It's always out of date, and now the caption and picture are out of sync, too. Let's not confuse people! Awolf002 13:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The storm track can be described in the article itself (and can be changed much easier). Mike H 13:37, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer to leave it. For me, the more pictures, the better. -- AAAAA 14:32, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just as long as people are uploading over the old image and aren't uploading to new file names, I'm not going to argue against it. -- Cyrius| ✎ 15:55, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keith Edkins

I only updated because you hadn't changed the time. I thought it was odd that most of the positions and speeds were the same. :)

HOWEVER, some aren't, and that's confusing me. Check the diff between you and me; some of my numbers (obtained directly from the NHC) don't match your's. Where did you get your figures from? -- Golbez 15:48, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

First-hand accounts

Just wanted to check with everyone about this, since I know it might bother some people a little. My entire maternal family is Bahamian, and we've been getting cell phone calls periodically from family telling us what's been happening in the islands. Do you mind me adding in the basic facts from their accounts, even though I can't link to sources? One of my uncles is a hurricane tracker, so it's not like it's coming from completely useless sources, but I want to make sure I don't start adding in information when people might only want information that can be linked to on-line or some such. Maybe it's a ridiculous question, but I figured it's worth asking. (For the record, the only edit with first-hand accounts I've made so far is here.) Beginning 21:24, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Don't see any reason why it shouldn't be - it could be argued that it's original research, but I won't muck with it. We'll have to see what a more veteran Wikipedian has to say on the subject, though. -- Goobergunch 21:31, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think this is tricky. I laud your intentions, but Wikipedia is not a news site. It tries to select information from trusted and (at least in principle) verifiable sources, in order to compile all human knowledge. Maybe it's okay to add those if clearly marked as "unverified reports"? But I would expect those sections will be "edited" out as soon as news comes through other more trusted sources. Just my 2 cents. Awolf002 21:37, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'm aware of the intent and that it's not a news site, but I figured since the page is clearly marked as an "ongoing event", updates on the situation might be worthwhile and completely appropriate. I've since sourced as much as possible, so no "unverified reports" disclaimers should be necessary. I also removed some things that I know to be true from everything we're hearing, but which I can't find actual articles on (I'll check the Nassau papers in a day or two to see if they're fully back yet). Thanks for the input. Beginning 22:52, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Landfall

At the moment, landfall looks imminent at West Palm Beach, Florida. I know the "be bold!" thing and all that, but I wanted to get input. Anyone think it should be changed? Mike H 19:28, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

*glances at radar* Sounds good to me. -- Goobergunch 19:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the western eyewall is now over the coast between Ft. Pierce and West Palm Beach. But I think the NHC will call it landfall when the center of the storm is over land. So not yet... Awolf002 01:40, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Max Mayfield, director of the NHC, said on CNN I believe (it may have been Larry King saying that Mayfield said it) that landfall occured just north of West Palm Beach. Not a conclusive source, but something. So far as I know, landfall occurs when any portion of the eyewall passes over land. -- Golbez 01:51, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, then the next Hurricane status update should tell us officially. Awolf002 01:53, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was wrong; CNN just said landfall only counts when the CENTER of the eye is over land. Isn't this storm completely screwed up? The eye is 50 miles wide and the storm is moving 5mph. The eye will be over areas for up to 10 hours! -- Golbez 04:34, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like it doesn't matter anymore. Looks like the center's on shore, or damn close to it. As for being in the eye for a long time, the NHC forecasters have commented on it in the discussions. "those in the path of the center will experience the calm of the eye for a long period of time." -- Cyrius| ✎ 04:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
CNN reported that the NHC reported at 1am that the center was on shore; since there is no specific update on the website, though, I haven't updated the article. I want specifics. -- Golbez 05:24, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I switched it back to Fort Pierce a while ago. Mike H 05:25, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I just now looked at the talk page and saw you all had a surprisingly democratic system going regarding content. I uploaded the landfall radar image Bigpicture0457xx.png for historical purposes... it's actually a pretty neat graphic, but if you decide on something else that's cool. But hopefully it works for you. Timvasquez 05:26, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a very good graphic to keep once the storm is over. Mike H 05:29, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Just check with the picture copyright policies of Wikipedia, since your picture has not the "normal" copyright for US governement generated graphics, which makes them free for every use. Awolf002 08:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a very bad graphic to keep because it's non-commercial only and we have adequate public domain substitutes. -- Cyrius| ✎ 16:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Ok, ok, I updated it to public domain. Awolf: this is not a government-authored image; please see resources on copyright protection of value-added derivatives of government works (e.g. here -- there are industries such as GIS built on this principle). In any case I've removed the image until you all decide what you want to do. Timvasquez 16:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It didn't have to be PD. It's just that we try to avoid licenses with restrictions who can reuse Wikipedia's stuff. It's part of that "free encyclopedia" thing. GFDL would have been just peachy, and there's several others that are acceptable. It's a nice image, and since the licensing seems to be sorted out I'd rather use it than NOAA's single radar views. -- Cyrius| ✎ 17:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Right, it is a great picture but it had restrictions mentioned. If we can have it under GFDL, that would be nice! Awolf002 22:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Evac map

I think we should keep the evacuation map around, but only one that shows the highest amount of evacuations; I'm not sure if the one up there now is a more recent one than the original. It would be useful to show just how many evacuations there were, and less so as a news resource. But I'm not sure if the one there now shows the full extent of the evacuations. -- Golbez 05:59, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The one that's up now is from the 3rd. If nothing else, we need to clarify that it's not up-to-date at all. Beginning 16:31, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Historical record vs News

When this article has stablilized and become history, we should use many different versions of Image:Hurricane Frances track.gif (a pesky gif, should be converted later on too), to illustrate the path as it was expected before and during the storm. [[User:Sverdrup| ❝Sverdrup❞]] 15:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Which ones? There's 47 of them on the NHC servers at last count. -- Cyrius| ✎ 16:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
this one is good, I think. [[User:Sverdrup| ❝Sverdrup❞]] 17:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Track

If someone can come up with a GFDL/PD historical track for Frances, upload it over Image:Hurricane Frances track.gif. The image has been removed because it contains the forecast track which is, surprise, no longer relevant to the article. On the other hand, a historical track would be quite relevant. -- Cyrius| ✎ 05:19, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Territories Affected

The box currently lists both Florida and the "East Coast of the United States" as affected territories. However, since Florida is part of the East Coast, this reads a little awkwardly to me. Can we change the East Coast part to something more specific? Also, I believe that it was never anything more than a tropical depression beyond Florida, so if the East Coast line is simply referring to the rains from what was left of Frances, maybe it's not necessary to begin with? Beginning 13:21, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Heh, "simply referring". Inland freshwater flooding is the most dangerous and damaging part of a hurricane. Tropical Storm Allison got its name retired solely on the basis of causing heavy rain as a tropical depression.
Frances caused heavy rainfall in a large number of states, as can be seen from the HPC's advisories on the storm. If you want to list every individual state that received excessive rain separately, go ahead. I just thought it would look silly to do it that way. -- Cyrius| ✎ 17:51, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention a bit inaccurate, since Ohio and western North Carolina are far from the coast. -- Golbez 17:53, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Frances affected virtually everyone from the western front of the Appalachians eastward though...draw a diagonal line from about Biloxi to Nashville to Columbus to Toronto then north along about 77°N - everyone east of there was affected for the most part. CrazyC83 01:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC) reply

UNISYS

Is UNISYS public domain? Their track maps are awesome.

- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

According to their copyright policies:
Authorization is hereby provided to you to copy documents published by Unisys Corporation on the World Wide Web provided such copies are used for non-commercial purposes and solely for use within your organization. This authorization is specifically conditioned upon including all legends, copyright, proprietary and other notices which appear herein on all copies you make of such documents whether they pertain to Unisys Corporation or another party.
So I'd say no to public domain, but yes to fair use. Care to link? -- tomf688( talk) 21:31, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Tom. Well at least we can link to them. I was hoping that they were public domain so that we could replace the track maps on the induvidual hurricane articles (such as Frances) with the UNISYS track maps. Oh, well.

- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast 1 May 2005

No I think you misunderstood. I'm pretty sure we can use them as long as we put {{fairuse}} and cite. Wikipedia is non-commercial. -- tomf688( talk) 20:43, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
by the way: you can sign and timestamp your comments by typing in --~~~~

Personal report

Should we have the personal report here, or does that smell too much of original research/essay? -- Golbez 19:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like good information; perhaps it could be integrated into the article somehow. -- tomf688( talk) 19:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

How can we make sure those reports are accurate and "encyclopedic"? Maybe, people who like to contribute those should be directed to Wikinews? Awolf002 20:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC) reply

I was unsure about this as well, I made sure of the exact times/happenings in the humanity section. And I added a warning before the section. If anyone has any ideas for how the information could be placed into the article better, that would be great. Deleting it wouldnt be good at all as it has useful information such as the number of people evacuated, the complete backup on the interstates, when and what aid and recovery was provided after the storm, etc... Thepcnerd

After reading over this section again, would wikinews not be a valid source for the information as well? Thus directing someone to wikinews would just be a time extending formality. Thepcnerd 06:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC) reply

I think things like this are a bit too flowery and sounds like something you'd hear in a Weather Channel documentary.
September 5th, 1am EDT - The eye passes over the landfall point. Many people go outdoors in a silent, eerie, cold, fine mist.. Mike H. That's hot 14:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Maps

Is there a point to having TWO track maps? -- Golbez 21:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Todo

Lots of info here, but there's still a lot of work to be done. The storm history is too long and should be given subsections. The impact should be separated into impact and aftermath. Preparations should be extended. And I don't know what should be done with the humanity section (a similar section was removed from Hurricane Donna). Jdorje 21:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Humanity section should be merged in the impact section. It will not be as a subsection, but in the text itself, fitting in the correct parts of it (I hope everyone undestands what I mean). If this cannot be done, it should be removed bacause a section that is the same as the last one has no sense in an article, and another reason to remove it is because is looks more like a journal than an encyclopedic article. juan andrés 23:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply
Yep. — jdorje ( talk) 04:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The impact section on Florida (where most of the damage happened) is grossly small. I've been very surprised by how little US impact information exists on Frances and Jeanne. -- § Hurricane E RIC archive 01:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Photos from Frances

Hey, since I evacuated for Frances back then, I've got some pictures from then, including one that's of a power outage - fairly striking, candles and people's shadows in the dark. Is anyone interested in using them here? Runa27 01:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yea, some of them could work. Hurricanehink ( talk) 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Good Article Nomination

I withdrew the nomination. The article isn't that good. There are no inline sources. It needs a thorough copyedit, if not a full redo. Come to think of it, when I finish Charley, I'll give this a redo. Please don't nominate it until more work is done on the article. Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We all have good intentions, Hurricanehink. I made the remaining external links which still worked in-line sources. Someone downgraded it to Start, from B, class today. It may need some more editing before it returns to B class, such as more references. Thegreatdr 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Yea, this one fell down on the list (though FWIW, I said it would be when I finish Charley, so as that's not done yet I'm true to my word). Good work, but IMO such a large topic as Frances needs much more work before B class. Specifically, there are a few unsourced statements, little impact, and no aftermath. I dropped it back to start. Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I would imagine aftermath will be a problem, since Jeanne followed Frances 3-4 weeks later. As you can tell, I tend not to write the storm articles. My only attempt from scratch at an individual tropical cyclone article is Hurricane Flossy (1956). Normally I just reformat sections and insert extra information when I run across it while researching other more encompassing articles/topics. Thegreatdr 21:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, there'd still be some (like presidential disaster declaration). Unfortunately, such a large article would be a great amount of work, and probably too much for one editor (we all still very much appreciate your work, tho!). A collaborative effort would be better, though based on the history of the project that is extremely unlikely to happen. Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Don't be so sure. The tropical cyclone article has been the focus of collaboration since December, and that's been paying off in the form of a multitude of subarticles being created to help shorten the main article. Extratropical cyclone mainly required two of us to get it to FA in one month. =) Thegreatdr 11:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Well, the core of the project is one thing. Another retired hurricane is another :D Hurricanehink ( talk) 14:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The article appears to be fully cited. Filled out the Bahamian impact some. Am going ahead and GACing the article. Thegreatdr ( talk) 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, must of the storm history is uncited. Aside from that, the impact definitely needs more info, and there isn't an aftermath section. It might make GA, but for FA it needs quite a bit of work. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply
There are 17 references (some used more than once) supporting 27 sentences. How cluttered do we need to be with inline refs within the meteorological history? Thegreatdr ( talk) 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

NWS reports

These should be included in the article. Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC) reply

First Landfall in Florida

The first landfall in Florida was on unincorporated Hutchinson Island, which is the barrier island east of Sewall's Point, Jensen Beach, Port St. Lucie, etc. Sewall's Point is west of Hutchinson Island and has no ocean frontage. To make landfall on Sewall's Point the storm had to cross Hutchinson Island first. Sewall's Point was reported as being the first because it is the closest incorporated place. clariosophic ( talk) 13:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Going To Remove Some Eyewitness Reports

Hello.I'm going to remove the eyewitness reports and wind observations from the Bahamas and Florida that are in the "Storm History" section.I'll see if they fit into "Impact" sections,but they don't really seem to belong in Storm History,which should only contain the meteorological history of the storm itself. TheNobleSith ( talk) 18:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Frances/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

After a long delay, the article is now well-referenced, and is being submitted for GAC/GAR/GAN. Thegreatdr ( talk) 13:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

And after another long delay because of backlog, it's getting reviewed. :D This is the longest I've reviewed so far and since today is a school day, the review might not be out until 5pm (EST). But, it will most likely be out this morning. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 11:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

  1. Well Written
    a (prose): b ( MoS):
  2. Factually Accurate
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    There's only one minor ding with the references, number 16 has no author, publisher, date of access and what not. Otherwise there is nothing wrong with them, but if you want to go further with this article, it's best you put the reference names for refs 1, 3, 4, 17, and 24 in lowercase.
  3. Neutral point of view.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. Stability
    No edit wars etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Great job on bringing back this article! I only found one tiny thing with a reference, you need to put the author, date of access, publisher and the other things like the rest of the references. Once that's done I'll pass the article :) Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 11:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I just fixed the little thing for you, it was silly to wait to fix something that minor. It passes for GA now Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 15:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Costliness?

The lede gives $12 billion. Impact says $9 billion. List of Costliest Atlantic Hurricanes gives $10.4 billion. Ayzmo ( talk) 04:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Dispuetd

A lot of information in this article is not sourced and may be in accurate. For example, the article states that..."Frances was the first hurricane to impact the entire Bahamian archipelago since 1866, and led to the nearly complete destruction of their agricultural economy." However, the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane impacted the entire Bahamian chain in 1928, causing severe devastation. If anybody can find sources for any un-sourced information in the article, it would be appreciated. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Frances. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Frances. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Hurricane Frances. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Frances. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Hurricane_Frances&oldid=1210964059"