Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Epsilon (2005)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 108.35.187.79 (talk) at 00:27, 1 November 2020 (→merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleHurricane Epsilon (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHurricane Epsilon (2005) is part of the Off-season Atlantic hurricanes series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 20, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
December 15, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 8, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Template:Hurricane

Todo

references Jdorje 04:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but this is more like it. This should be the standard expected of all hurricane articles in the future. They should be no less than this. This article is nice. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "third-strongest" sentence

Hurricane Epsilon was the third-strongest hurricane ever recorded in the month of December, with a minimum pressure of 981 mbar (hPa); only Hurricane Nicole of 1998 and an unnamed storm in the 1925 season were stronger.

This snipplet was removed from the "Records" section as dubious earlier today; is there anything backing this up? --AySz88\^-^ 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The HURDAT does not give a pressure for the 1925 storm; so it cannot be said how strong it was (and it looks like the reanalysis will reduce it to a TS anyway). However now that I've looked through the data more fully the claim that Epsilon is number 3 is valid: Its behind Lili 1984 (980 mbar) and Nicole 1998 (979mbar).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA

Congratulations to all who have edited this article Gnangarra 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I made a minor correction in the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New format

Given that no one has complained yet, I am wondering whether anyone opposes how I re-formatted this article to be focused more on the meteorological history. Unlike other storm articles that have recently been merged, Epsilon is legitimately notable, based on the records it caused and its unusual meteorological history. I would like to move it to Meteorological history of Hurricane Epsilon, given that is its focus, but I'd like some feedback first. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is objecting about the title, I would like to point out something. We have an article on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, and Murder of James Bulger, not on the respective people related to those articles. The article title should be about the focus of the article, and given that Epsilon was only notable because of its meteorological history, that is how I believe the article should be focused. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Epsilon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  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:

Ref 20

Resolved

Reference 20 appears to be misplaced. It's used to cite a discussion from Lixion Avila but the cite describes a discussion from James L. Franklin. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, looks like someone merely copy-and-pasted the reference for Franklin's Discussion #20 intending to change it to point to Avila's Discussion #21 but neglected to update the pasted ref. Fixed now. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Epsilon. 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) 22:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge

This article has 22 kb total, the records section can fit easily in season article and so can most of the information. Just because it was a meteorological oddity doesn't give it an article. --170.24.150.111 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GA excuse won't apply as seen by Tropical Depression One (2009) or Tropical Storm Josephine (2008). --98.116.128.15 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support for similar reasons that Hurricane Epsilon in 2020 didn't get it's own article. ~ARay10⁽ᵗᵃˡᵏ⁾ 00:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Epsilon_(2005)&oldid=986459550"