Hurricane Erika (1997) 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 18, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No offense, but I think this should be merged. The article creator never had much to work with. This was a Cape Verde hurricane that was a fish. Hurricanehink 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I worked too hard let it go.She has its big things too. It was the only major hurricane of the year. 2.She was the last of the year. She deserves an article HurricaneCraze32 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
<---
Listen cant we make a deal. Erika can/maybe stay-Edouard will have to go. Erika: Enough backing info Has more 1997 stats-only major hurricane, and the last one.
Edouard: Not enough info
I vote Erika stays. your vote. HurricaneCraze32 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
My vote: Weak keep. While the storm impact isn't entirely warranting an article, I believe that it is a good article and there is (just) enough information to warrant the article being kept. (BTW I saw the test article and liked it - although your Tanya (1995) article needs some work but should be published) The storm sections of each season article is so badly clustered and overloaded in active seasons, and we need to move towards being more consistent for both active and less-active seasons. If anything, we need to get more storms onto separate articles. However, I am not suggesting that the least-notable storms (i.e. tropical depressions) from non-active seasons get moved over, at least not immediately. CrazyC83 02:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And we're stuck at a 2-2 tie now. HurricaneCraze32 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What does everything think of this? Hurricanecraze, who made this and remade this, has been talking to me, and I still don't see the need for this article. Any other opinions? -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I just did a major copy-edit of this article, as the grammar was terrible. However, it still needs a lot of work done on the grammar to be considered a good article, although there is enough information to keep it. bob rulz 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A very good amount of expanding and specific referencing has been done over the past several days. Looks good enough to be B-class. Hello32020 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Block quote
A few things need to be addressed before this can become a GA:
Hopefully this isn't asking too much, and I look forward to checking back on the article. Happy editing, Green451 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Erika (1997). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. CCI check not done. Noah Talk 23:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hurricane Erika (1997) 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 18, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No offense, but I think this should be merged. The article creator never had much to work with. This was a Cape Verde hurricane that was a fish. Hurricanehink 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I worked too hard let it go.She has its big things too. It was the only major hurricane of the year. 2.She was the last of the year. She deserves an article HurricaneCraze32 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
<---
Listen cant we make a deal. Erika can/maybe stay-Edouard will have to go. Erika: Enough backing info Has more 1997 stats-only major hurricane, and the last one.
Edouard: Not enough info
I vote Erika stays. your vote. HurricaneCraze32 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
My vote: Weak keep. While the storm impact isn't entirely warranting an article, I believe that it is a good article and there is (just) enough information to warrant the article being kept. (BTW I saw the test article and liked it - although your Tanya (1995) article needs some work but should be published) The storm sections of each season article is so badly clustered and overloaded in active seasons, and we need to move towards being more consistent for both active and less-active seasons. If anything, we need to get more storms onto separate articles. However, I am not suggesting that the least-notable storms (i.e. tropical depressions) from non-active seasons get moved over, at least not immediately. CrazyC83 02:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And we're stuck at a 2-2 tie now. HurricaneCraze32 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What does everything think of this? Hurricanecraze, who made this and remade this, has been talking to me, and I still don't see the need for this article. Any other opinions? -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I just did a major copy-edit of this article, as the grammar was terrible. However, it still needs a lot of work done on the grammar to be considered a good article, although there is enough information to keep it. bob rulz 06:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
A very good amount of expanding and specific referencing has been done over the past several days. Looks good enough to be B-class. Hello32020 02:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Block quote
A few things need to be addressed before this can become a GA:
Hopefully this isn't asking too much, and I look forward to checking back on the article. Happy editing, Green451 01:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Erika (1997). 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. CCI check not done. Noah Talk 23:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)