Talk:Hurricane Erika (2003)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Hurricane Erika (2003) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 20, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
The following comments have been left for this page: Rainfall and landfall radar pictures would push the article to A/FA-Class. Titoxd(?!?) 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (edit)

Hurricane Erika (2003) is part of the "2003 Atlantic hurricane season" series, a featured topic, which means it has been identified as part of one of the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.

Contents 1 Todo/Merge 2 Todo/Merge 2 3 Todo 3 4 GA passed

[edit] Todo/Merge

More storm history, the formation section is just plain wrong (they didn't upgrade it due to the lack of a well-defined surface circulation), more intro (actually explain why the storm is notable, which I cannot find yet), get rid of the winds section and put it in storm history, and a hell of a lot more impact. Why should this storm have an article? I propose this be merged, given its lack of effects and notability. Hurricanehink 00:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor damage and 2 deaths? This storm clearly doesn't deserve an article. — jdorje (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright. I'll get the axe ready. Hurricanehink 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, it's merged. Hurricanehink 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo/Merge 2

More storm history, fix the typos, more impact, do something with the winds section.... The whole thing needs a rewrite. If no one will rewrite it, then it should be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Better? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A little bit, but it's still missing a lot. The impact and storm history should both be expanded. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo 3

OK, I just finished redoing it. I might have found a good image to use, located here, but it's a joint work between NASA and Japan. Is that allowed or not? Other than that, is it B class? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

2 mistakes:

• "Operationally Erika was never upgraded to hurricane status. Based on a

persistant eye feature on radar, and Doppler radar estimated surface winds of 75 mph (120)- that should say 120 km/h.

• "border in mid-August of the [[2003 Atlantic hurricane season."- link wasn't finished.1998's Mitchazenia (joking) 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. You know, you could of just fixed it yourself. I think it's a B-class, shall I upgrade it? íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• My mom wanted me, so i hurried that up.1998's Mitchazenia (joking) 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh. I hate when that happens. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm glad I'm in college. Still, wouldn't it have been faster if you made the corrections originally, without even posting it in here?? :P Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

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

This is an article that meets the requirements.

I was just wondering if there was some material that could be added about the oil down-production in Texas, as to find out if it affected the USA consumption. Lincher 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just searched a bit, and its passage only had minimal effects on the oil operations. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I just did a few copyedits, and left a couple of comments inline (with {{explain}}), but overall, the article is A-Class. It would be nice to ask Nilfanion and Thegreatdr for landfall radar and total rainfall imagery, respectively. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked Thegreatdr a few weeks ago about a rainfall imagery, and this is what he said. "I'm planning on doing a graphic for Mexico. I'll check to see if I've created a spreadsheet for Florida...I think I already have. If the rainfall isn't online now, it will be when the Mexican rainfall is added in." I guess that means it won't take too long. As for the article, it wasn't a fujiwhara, as it was not two tropical systems. The TCR says nearly developed, so I guess that works. I also tried finding some free impact pictures, but no luck. This was the only site I could find that had impact pictures. This newspaper had a pic of people boarding up in south Texas (usable but not that useful), though not too much out there on the storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. Impact pics would be nice, but I know they're hard to acquire. How about the radar pic? Titoxd^(?!?) 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've asked him on his talk page. Never mind, then. :) Titoxd^(?!?) 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)