Talk:Hurricane Esther

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Yellow Evan in topic WP:URFA/2020
Former featured articleHurricane Esther is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 10, 2014.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 21, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
November 5, 2015Featured topic candidatePromoted
September 24, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
February 22, 2023Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Merge?

edit

This storm wasn't terribly notable. The info in the Project Stormfury section could be easily moved into the Project Stormfury article. The storm history isn't that extensive and there's not that much info on it. The track is unusual but that's not enough to justify an article. I vote merge. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 03:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Support. The unusual track is specified in the storm history, and the stormfury section can go elsewhere. I'd wait for one or two more people's responses. Hurricanehink 04:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Against Merge. More info about Esther can be found in the Montly Weather Review and some internet sites. Storm05 15:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
But much of that info is already here. It caused little damage, its storm history (with the loop) can condensed a bit and put into the seasonal article, and, like Eric said, the Project Stormfury should be in that article. Still for merge. Hurricanehink 16:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)Reply
Added more infomation Storm05 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I changed my mind. This has a chance to stay, but needs some more work. Hurricanehink 03:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Todo

edit

Very low quality writing; lots to improve. Jdorje 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

No section should ever be called "Close call" or "Close calls". This is basically trivia. Merge it into an important section or remove it. — jdorje (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since this article is obviously not going anywhere any time soon, I've corrected a lot of spelling and grammar errors, and reorganized the article a bit to look like other TC articles. --Coredesat 21:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Good work. I upped it to B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The primary source for this article should be the NHC archive on the storm here. The "prenhc" subdirectory contains the TCR (page 1) and the advisories (the rest of it); should be the primary source for most things. Other things to do, metrication and the like.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm going through it now to see what references I can change. --Coredesat 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Expanded impact, changed most of the references to official NHC/NWS reports, and removed a few redundant links from the External Links section. --Coredesat 01:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Expanded the intro, added some missing areas to the "areas affected" section (Long Island was left out for some reason), and did some minor cleanup. I'll split off a preparations section and change all the references to cite web format later. I might send this off to PR when I'm done. I've got a lot more enthusiasm since this is the first article I've helped reach GA status. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 08:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

GA promoted

edit

Hope you guys could bring other categories to GA status rather than sticking to hurricane. With your talent for the hurricane articles the other wikiprojects would benefit.

I don't really have advices into what to work on next, I'd consider a PR. Lincher 03:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cordesat, you should put it up for FAC. It looks ready. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Now an FA. Great job, Cordesat. —Cuiviénen 04:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Hopefully any future ones will be easier to find sources for. Oh, and there's an extra "e" in my username. :P --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 05:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Link to discussion of article at Wikipedia talk:Lead section

edit

This article is being discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Lead section#How to reference summary style sections such as the lead section. Please add comments if you wish. Carcharoth 15:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Esther. 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).

  • 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) 22:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Esther. 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).

  • 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) 03:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Esther. 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).

  • 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) 08:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

WP:URFA/2020

edit
  • Multiple unsourced statements
  • Plenty of academic literature on this storm that isn't discussed, particularly in regards to hurricane modification.
  • There are some grammatical issues and the current wording is not brilliant.
  • duplicate links

I have not checked for missing/additional preps and impact. I am noticing this for FAR. NoahTalk 04:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

CCI check not yet done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)Reply