Talk:Hurricane Erika (1997)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured topic candidate
Promoted
January 22, 2024Featured topic removal candidateDemoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 20, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Merge

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)[reply]

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)[reply
]

I'm sorry for your hard work, but it isn't very long. If it makes you feel better, it is short enough to merge the entire thing back into the seasonal article without changing a thing. In addition, does Gustav from 1990 or Debby from 1982 deserve an article because they were the only major hurricanes from that year? Yes, it killed two people, but you never had much to work with. Generally, landfalling tropical cyclones are much easier to work with, mainly due to the effects it caused. Same with Edouard. You tried hard. You followed directions for a good article, but it is very hard to write a good article for storms that don't hit land. There are exceptions, but generally that is the rule. Hurricanehink 22:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it if you can give me a link for info on both Edouard and Erika.
HurricaneCraze32 22:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
That's the problem. There is only info on a storm history. The hurricane didn't do much. If Hurricane Erika sank a ship in the Atlantic, or its outflow caused major damage on an island, it might work, but the storm didn't effect land, with the exception of the two deaths from surfers. Hurricanehink 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now look at Erika-information extrodinare.Found a site.
HurricaneCraze32 22:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
You can't copy and paste from the NHC site. Hurricanehink 22:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How's this one look?
HurricaneCraze32 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
How's this website? http://www.met.inf.cu/sometcuba/boletin/v04_n01/english/tempora1.htm Hurricanehink 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um i believe thats where i found that.
HurricaneCraze32 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Exactly. You copied and pasted it, though I think you're not allowed to. Hurricanehink 01:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well i took that article and rearranged it. Changed some things and added a couple sentences. Whats it gonna take to make it ready for no merge?
HurricaneCraze32 01:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
For starters, you need to make it long enough to not be considered a stub, WITHOUT counting the storm history section. As short as it is it can easily be included in the season article. Jdorje 01:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<---

It isn't entirely the article. The storm just wasn't that notable. That is always a trouble when making an article if there is little outside the storm history. Hurricanehink 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i chose Edouard and Erika is because i'm doing articles on hurricanes that were strong but were mainly forgotten.

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)[reply
]


I agree with the merge. Rather than making new articles with bad grammar and little content, we should work to improve the grammar and content of existing articles. If you're looking for something to do, there are well over 100 Atlantic hurricane season articles that could use some copyediting. (No offense, but the grammar and wikification of this article, as with many of the articles you have written, is atrocious.) Jdorje 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not positive on this but I think you *can* copy and paste from the NHC site. A number of storm articles are "modified after the NOAA site XXX"; because the NHC site is public domain its text can be included directly. However I am not positive on this and would strongly advise consulting the
WP:HD before doing so. Jdorje 00:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, but still, you shouldn't directly copy and paste. Hurricanehink 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's not a good article; the grammar and wikification is terrible - though that's not a criteria for merging. However the fact that there is only 1 sentence for impact and 1 sentence for trivia means the article does not serve any purpose from a notability standpoint. Jdorje 04:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And the article isn't what has me so much. The storm just didn't do that much. I still vote Strong yes for merge. Hurricanehink 12:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Still a couple additions have been made to it.

And we're stuck at a 2-2 tie now.

HurricaneCraze32 11:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

WHERE DID MY HURRICANE KARL (2004) ARTICLE GO?!
HurricaneCraze32 23:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
IT WAS REDIRECTED. THERE WAS TOO LITTLE INFORMATION IN IT. Hurricanehink 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2

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)[reply]

Before I can decide if it should stay, the pictures need to be fixed. I think I'll do that as long as it's ok with everyone. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 12:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From a notabilty standpoint, the storm does not deserve an article. However, the same is true for Hurricane Irene, but that one is kept because it meets the "quality" requirement for articles. Right now, this article isn't up to those standards, as it needs rewriting, expansion, grammar correction, formatting of references, and more images. The NHC TCR/Preliminary Report might be a good starting point, but you need more references than that. Titoxd(?!?) 23:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, Irene was made because we thought every 2005 storm deserved an article. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but at the same time, 1997 isn't that far away to not find information. The article does need to be overhauled or merged, though. Titoxd(?!?) 00:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True. I personally think that the overhaul isn't that necessary. What does this article have the the seasonal article lacks? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good copyedit, but I'm not convinced there's enough info. Typically, a storm article either needs to be notable or to have plenty of information to justify an article. I believe this lacks both. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think its improved alot since August. Storm05 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upgraded to B-class

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)[reply]

Block quote

GA on hold

A few things need to be addressed before this can become a GA:

  • Similar to what happened in my review of
    Hurricane Emmy (1976)
    , the lead needs to be shorter (specifically you should summarize the path of the hurricane more).
  • "On September 7, Erika began to quickly intensify, and the hurricane reached a peak strength of 125 mph (195 km/h) on September 8 while located about 350 miles (565 km) north of the Lesser Antilles. Erika maintained peak intensity for about 24 hours before weakening over cooler waters." I'm not that familiar with the workings of hurricanes, so maybe you can answer this. Did Erika just stay still for 24 hours before weakening or did it start to weaken somewhere else? Because the above statement does not state where the cooler waters were located that caused the hurricane to weaken, I'm not sure.
  • Can you provide some sort of citation that states that all of those countries issued warnings?
  • Related to the same sentence, "Issued a tropical storm warnings" should be "issued tropical storm warnings"
  • Provide a citation for "The government of Guadeloupe issued a Storm Alert level 2 for the island, which recommended all citizens to remain in their houses."
  • "The outer rainbands of Erika passed over Puerto Rico, producing maximum sustained winds of 23 mph (37 km/h) and a peak wind gust of 42 mph (68 km/h) at the Luis Muñoz Marín International Airport. The wind gusts snapped tree branches into power lines, leaving up to 12,000 people without power in San Juan, Guaynabo and Bayamon. Rainfall was light on the island, with Caguas reporting a peak total of 0.77 inches (20 mm). The hurricane produced swells of 10 to 12 feet (3 to 3.7 m) on the northern coast of Puerto Rico, causing beach erosion or coastal flooding. One road was closed when sections of it were flooded or washed out." This entire sentence needs multiple citations.
  • "Thirty-one ships encountered Erika from September 4 when it was a tropical storm to September 18 when it was extratropical. Two recorded hurricane force winds with a peak of 99 mph. The lowest recorded pressure by a ship was 1000.4 mbar while located 105 miles (170 km) from Erika as an extratropical storm. The lowest recorded pressure while Erika was a tropical cyclone was 1000.5 mbar while located 190 miles (305 km) from the center. While passing near the Azores, Tropical Storm Erika produced maximum sustained winds of 30 mph (48 km/h) at Lajes Field. Gusts were much stronger, with a report of 87 mph (140 km/h) in Flores. In addition, Lajes recorded a gust of 105 mph (169 km/h) from a 200 foot (61 m) tower." This entire sentence needs citations for all facts stated.
  • Similar to the Emmy review, there are too many uses of the hurricane's full name ("Hurricane Erika"). Some of these could be reduced to just "Erika" or "the hurricane".
  • Also as in the Emmy review reference 1 needs to have "TXT" in the format parameter, and references 5 and 6 are subscription only, so either a note should be made about that, or the references should be converted to Template:Cite news or something similar.

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)[reply]

Okeydoke. First, I think the lede is a good length for this length of an article, given this article has a fairly long storm history and impact section. For the second thing, a few sentences before in that paragraph says it turned to the northeast, so do I still have to reiterate that it moved northeastward into cooler waters? The Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject has a standard that we list a reference at the end of every section from which the information came from. If the first three sentences of a paragraph was from website A, the reference will go at the end of the third sentence, not after sentences one and two. Having it after sentences one and two is entirely redundant and clutters things. The same goes for the rest of the reference problems. I don't see the harm in calling it "Hurricane Erika" four times in the article. Hurricane Erika was its official name, not simply Erika, after all. The newspaper sites were not subscription only before I made the article, so now I just removed the url, seeing as they were still newspaper copies. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I get what you're saying about where the hurricane was when it weakened (the hurricane was constantly moving northeast). Your standard about where citations are placed works for me, all I care about is that the facts are referenced. I will concede calling the hurricane by its full name to you. As everything else looks good to me, I'll pass this. Green451 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020

  • Needs alt text
  • Duplicate links
  • Decent scholarly lit here.

Listing at

WP:FARGIVEN. CCI check not done. NoahTalk 23:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Erika_(1997)&oldid=1207674130"