![]() | Hurricane Irene (2005) 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 November 21, 2018. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mangelango. Peer reviewers:
Mangelango.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
No real information here outside of the storm history. Could some more (different-looking) pics be found? Jdorje 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you think? I think it should be merged because it did nothing but a fishspinner. -- 24.85.161.198 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So did Maria... well sort of. Icelandic Hurricane 01:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I say merge. It did next to nothing. Mind you, a case could be made to keep. Maria is as notable as Irene, fishspinners. Maria made landfall as extratropical. WotGoPlunk 03:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, nobody's objected to the merge. But whoever does it, make sure you merge the whole thing. We could even add full infoboxes to the storms list page... — jdorje ( talk) 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
On notability, merge back. However, the page is long enough and detailed enough to warrant keeping. As a result, I vote to keep, simply on its length. CrazyC83 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge, as it's a fishspinner. It did no damage whatsoever.
WotGoPlunk
16:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep is the point of wikipedia not to have as much info as possible? Jamie| C 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Maybe there will be enough information when the TCR is completed, but it wasn't a very important storm to keep its article separated. juan andrés 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge, right now my vote is to merge Irene's article, but if someone can find some interesting information, I think we could keep it. Memicho 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy merge, this storm did nothing whatsoever. All that needs to be said can be said in the main article. -- § Hurricane E RIC § Damages archive 14:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Forecasting and post-season changes. Hurricanehink 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
<------ OK, putting stuff like that works in the storm history. Seeing as we're discussing the sections here, I also think that small ACE changes should be ignored (if a storm differs by less than 1 point, no need to mention it). Then, the forecasting section could be split up by preparations (warnings and evacuations) and storm history- "Early predictions indicated a threat to North Carolina or Massachusettes, though a trough of low pressure pulled Irene to the north" something like that. Does that work? Hurricanehink 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we should add quotes from the discussions to the article, like Dennis and Epsilon do? That will make the storms section longer though.-- Nilfanion 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Jdorje, I agree the post-season analysis is not notable for Irene, but the phrasing of your edit summary makes me a little confused, because it is significant on some storms. Perhaps we should drop ACE comments (or add it to the infobox?) and put "initially it was thought the minimum pressure of Irene was 975 but it was reduced to 970 in post-season analysis" in ths storm history in the discussion of Irenes peak? -- Nilfanion 08:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless we get to hear about some damages to shipping I think this article is essentially finished. As such I have raised it to B-class, hope thats reasonable? This doesn't relate to the upkeep of this article, but I followed the image link to the commons, and the description there is still as a current event. Should those descriptions be updated? -- Nilfanion 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's there yet - here's my suggestions:
I have done a copyedit to address your concerns, does it look better now? (I don't think theres a problem with the portal link, all the FA storm articles like Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Gloria have it)-- Nilfanion 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article is the Category 5 standard for non-landfalling hurricanes. Let's say we nominate it for Featured article status. Even if it fails it will provide good feedback on similar articles in the future. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much repetition !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analogue 10oO ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | Hurricane Irene (2005) 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 November 21, 2018. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Mangelango. Peer reviewers:
Mangelango.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
No real information here outside of the storm history. Could some more (different-looking) pics be found? Jdorje 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
What do you think? I think it should be merged because it did nothing but a fishspinner. -- 24.85.161.198 23:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
So did Maria... well sort of. Icelandic Hurricane 01:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I say merge. It did next to nothing. Mind you, a case could be made to keep. Maria is as notable as Irene, fishspinners. Maria made landfall as extratropical. WotGoPlunk 03:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, nobody's objected to the merge. But whoever does it, make sure you merge the whole thing. We could even add full infoboxes to the storms list page... — jdorje ( talk) 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
On notability, merge back. However, the page is long enough and detailed enough to warrant keeping. As a result, I vote to keep, simply on its length. CrazyC83 21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge, as it's a fishspinner. It did no damage whatsoever.
WotGoPlunk
16:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep is the point of wikipedia not to have as much info as possible? Jamie| C 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep Maybe there will be enough information when the TCR is completed, but it wasn't a very important storm to keep its article separated. juan andrés 18:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge, right now my vote is to merge Irene's article, but if someone can find some interesting information, I think we could keep it. Memicho 18:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Speedy merge, this storm did nothing whatsoever. All that needs to be said can be said in the main article. -- § Hurricane E RIC § Damages archive 14:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Forecasting and post-season changes. Hurricanehink 13:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
<------ OK, putting stuff like that works in the storm history. Seeing as we're discussing the sections here, I also think that small ACE changes should be ignored (if a storm differs by less than 1 point, no need to mention it). Then, the forecasting section could be split up by preparations (warnings and evacuations) and storm history- "Early predictions indicated a threat to North Carolina or Massachusettes, though a trough of low pressure pulled Irene to the north" something like that. Does that work? Hurricanehink 01:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you think we should add quotes from the discussions to the article, like Dennis and Epsilon do? That will make the storms section longer though.-- Nilfanion 14:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Jdorje, I agree the post-season analysis is not notable for Irene, but the phrasing of your edit summary makes me a little confused, because it is significant on some storms. Perhaps we should drop ACE comments (or add it to the infobox?) and put "initially it was thought the minimum pressure of Irene was 975 but it was reduced to 970 in post-season analysis" in ths storm history in the discussion of Irenes peak? -- Nilfanion 08:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Unless we get to hear about some damages to shipping I think this article is essentially finished. As such I have raised it to B-class, hope thats reasonable? This doesn't relate to the upkeep of this article, but I followed the image link to the commons, and the description there is still as a current event. Should those descriptions be updated? -- Nilfanion 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's there yet - here's my suggestions:
I have done a copyedit to address your concerns, does it look better now? (I don't think theres a problem with the portal link, all the FA storm articles like Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Gloria have it)-- Nilfanion 22:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that this article is the Category 5 standard for non-landfalling hurricanes. Let's say we nominate it for Featured article status. Even if it fails it will provide good feedback on similar articles in the future. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 20:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Too much repetition !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Analogue 10oO ( talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 November 2018 (UTC)