Talk:Hurricane Earl (1998)

Merge?

There's not a whole lot of information here, and the storm didn't do all that much. Merge it? Hurricanehink 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the storm wasn't that notable and a lot of the info is menial. Not to mention, the article is not terribly well written. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This storm makes other non-notable storms look notable by comparison. $15 million in damages? That's got to be comparable to Arlene or Tammy. — jdorje (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ouch, ownage. Shall I fetch the axe? -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 19:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea, why not? Hurricanehink 19:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's surprisingly well-written (although Airforce isn't a word). If you merge it just make sure the merge is complete. — jdorje (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably because it's a near copy of the NHC report. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 16:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that...probably we should start off all our articles as copies of the NHC reports, then expand them with more modern information. — jdorje (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Copies should be avoided. That's what Wikisource is for. Hurricanehink 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Todo/Merge?

Fix the numerous typos/grammar errors and prove why this needs an article. While there is a good amount of information here, it simply hides the fact that the storm wasn't that notable. Given the brevity of the section in the storm summary, much of the important information here could easily be put there. Because of that, I propose this be re-merged. Hurricanehink 00:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that. Make sure the important info here is moved to the main article, I don't want anything lost in translation here. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't appear that it was ever merged (unless it was unmerged?). It seems that there's enough in the impact section to warrant an article, imo, although it could just be a copy of the TCR. I cleaned up a lot of the severe grammar problems in the article, as well. bob rulz 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

25-Aug-2006: Don't merge. Separate articles allow for expanding with interesting detail, perhaps by someone from the hurricane region. Wikipedia is too sophomoric, too juvenile, imo about complex subjects, such as turtles killed in Tampa Bay area by Hurricane Earl. From obsession about Hurricane Katrina, it seemed as though Katrina stopped and moved into the Superdome, when in reality, Katrina didn't even go to New Orleans: more damage was over 40 miles eastward. However, New Orleans drug dealers evacuated to Houston, learned major-league drug-dealing, and took the Houston-drug tactics back to NOLA: that's the kind of complex connection I mean. Comprende? -Wikid77 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Disaster Areas map

There is one thing that this article does right; it has a map of counties declared disaster areas. I like this idea, and I think that these maps should be used for other tropical cyclone articles, as well. I think it's a useful map. bob rulz 17:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though there comes a problem when the disaster areas are in more than one state. They only do the map state by state, so it would be useless to have all of the maps for a storm like Floyd. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...well, somebody could create one on their own, possibly? bob rulz 23:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Maybe this should be brought up on the Wikiproject page and see if anyone would want to take a stab at the multi-state. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'm going to bring it up there. bob rulz 01:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Earl (1998)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have gone through the article and copy edited numerous errors that seemed to be typographic. That is why I fixed them rather than listing them. Please check the article to make sure I have not altered the meaning.

Otherwise, I am happy to say that this article meets the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review and copyedit Mattisse. Concerning your question about the changes, I only have one minor one.

• The change in the lead about the tornado outbreak now reads that there were more than one. Since all the tornadoes were spawned by the same system, it would be considered a single event.

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please change anything you feel is incorrect. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

All done. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):Covers broad aspects b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Earl (1998). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902164113/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998earl.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998earl.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090507114959/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1998.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1998.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090508220301/https://www.fema.gov/news/eventcounties.fema?id=561 to http://www.fema.gov/news/eventcounties.fema?id=561
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902164113/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998earl.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1998earl.html

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).

• 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) 22:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)