This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Erika (2003) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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. 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 December 5, 2023. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
persistant eye feature on radar, and Doppler radar estimated surface winds of 75 mph (120)- that should say 120 km/h.
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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Erika (2003)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Rainfall and landfall radar pictures would push the article to A/FA-Class. Tito xd( ?!?) 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Erika Aug 16 2003 1655Z.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Leaving notes here. Noah Talk 21:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
the article seems emperatively vandalized! 2605:A601:9187:8A00:2DD:8A36:1B2B:11BA ( talk) 19:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Erika (2003) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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. 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 December 5, 2023. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
persistant eye feature on radar, and Doppler radar estimated surface winds of 75 mph (120)- that should say 120 km/h.
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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Erika (2003)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Rainfall and landfall radar pictures would push the article to A/FA-Class. Tito xd( ?!?) 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Erika Aug 16 2003 1655Z.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich ( talk) 02:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Leaving notes here. Noah Talk 21:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
the article seems emperatively vandalized! 2605:A601:9187:8A00:2DD:8A36:1B2B:11BA ( talk) 19:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)