|Hurricane Igor 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.|
|Current status: Good article|
|WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms / Atlantic||(Rated A-class, Mid-importance)|
Rainfall graphics coming next week
I have been corresponding with Environment Canada, which is going to allow me to post their rainfall graphic for Newfoundland online with no changes (meaning it will be millimeters). That way, there will be no need to personally produce such a graphic. For storms which have only impacted Canada, I have agreed to produce both millimeter and inch graphics...for Igor I will only produce the inch graphics. I will leave it to you all to decide which should be used with this article, since both will be available. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Category 5 or not?
Someone got trigger happy and decided to put up Igor as a Category 5 when it was really a Category 4. That being said, it is very possible Igor will be upgraded to a Category 5 hurricane post season, given the TAFB, ADT, and SAB all at one point had a 7.0 Average.. or 140 knots. EndeavourLaunch (talk) 6:45, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
Canada news archive
Don't you think Igor might be in the running for retirement due to damage in Newfoundland?
- Let's not speculate on its chances for retirement. However, given that Igor was the only one of its name, there is no need for the 2010, so I am moving it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the renaming is prematurate as nothing guarantee the name will be retired. What will happen if it is not and in 6 years another storm get the same name ? There will be a flip-flop ! Pierre cb (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Igor/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
- Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next several days. I will then return and give you my review. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been reviewing this article for the past several days, and honestly, I think that this article meets the GA criteria right now. Very nice job!
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- Pass or Fail:
Hurricane of 1775?
The first sentence of the article seems to be contradicted by the Wikipedia entry for the Newfoundland Hurricane of 1775 which reportedly killed over 4000 people. --DougieOcean (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Those fatalities took place offshore and damage onshore was limited AFAIK. Igor on the other hand was devastating onshore. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I saw this article at FAC but I was too busy at the time to comment. Anyways, my biggest concern here is units -- since it is an article that deals mostly with Canada (that is, it should, as Newfoundland was affected the most, by far), it should be metricated (rain in mm, distances and speed in km and km/h respectively). Also, I think there's more that could be done for the parts related to Canada, as it was quite a serious storm in Newfoundland. There's more sources/info available now on the aftermath, at least in Canada. Maxim(talk) 15:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)