Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Ignacio (2003)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Ignacio (2003) 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 Ignacio (2003) is part of the 2003 Pacific hurricane season 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed
March 6, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
September 21, 2008Good topic candidateNot promoted
June 18, 2012Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 23, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that 2003's Hurricane Ignacio was the latest-forming first hurricane of a Pacific hurricane season since reliable satellite observation began in 1966?
Current status: Good article

Assessment

[edit]

Wow. Go ahead an GA it.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 20:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how'd you see this article already? There's no links to it anywhere! :P Yea, I'll put it for GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're edit summary said you finished so I typed in the title.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 20:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, OK. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Sentence in Lead

[edit]

I'm not sure what this sentence is supposed to mean: "It was not initially predicted to track out to sea and remain a weak tropical storm, though it unexpectedly organized rapidly..." Was it, or was it not, expected to track out to sea? If not, it should say something like "Although even initially predicted to affect land, Ignacio organized faster than anticipated..." If so, the "not" should be removed. —Cuiviénen 00:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination on hold

[edit]

I've seen your previous contributions to multiple hurricane-related articles, and numerous GAs so you should have no problem fixing some minor things I noticed before I'll pass it (you got quite a backlog of articles waiting in GAC, don't you?)

1. Well written?: The article is well-written but there are a few things that should be fixed:
  • Fix redirects for: Baja California Peninsula & banding features
  • Either wikilink or further explain: dissipated, convection, wave axis, depression, bags of sand (to sandbag), swells, Mexican Navy, thunderstorm & forest fire
  • Misspelled: detiorating -> deteriorating, vessle -> vessel, reserviors -> reservoirs
  • The statement "Shortly after forming, westerly wind shear while dry air approached the depression from the north, resulting in a marginally favorable environment[4] and leaving the center of circulation exposed from the convection..." sounds quite complicated for the average reader, if you can simplify it somewhat.
  • The statement "...with the National Hurricane Center predicting it to attain major hurricane status and potentially significantly stronger if the center remained over open water." It doesn't seem parallel with "signficantly stronger", possibly "potentially increase in strength significantly".
  • The statement "...a watch upgraded to a warning nine hours later." Should possibly be "and the watch upgraded..."
  • The statement "Many roads remained impassable by a month after the hurricane." change to impassible for a month...
2. Factually accurate?: Information is well-sourced with plenty of inline citations, good job.
3. Broad in coverage?: Covers all aspects of the hurricane, if possible you could expand on the reconstruction after the hurricane.
4. Neutral point of view?: Appears NPOV, make sure it stays that way.
5. Stability?: No problems here.
6. Images?: Good usage of images, possibly add another of the areas hit by the hurricane with any damage if you get the chance.

Overall, very good on all aspects throughout the article. I was interested to see that the second to last statement declares that power was knocked out in Atwater, where I live in the summer months, so that was interesting to discover when reviewing this article. I'll leave this article on hold for seven days for these above suggestions to be fixed. Let me know when you finish or if you have any questions on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 21:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I fixed the redirects and typos. I wikilinked some of them, but not wave axis (already wikilinked to tropical wave) or depression (just a term for a tropical cyclone of weaker intensity). Got everything else that's doable. Unfortunately, there's no more info on reconstruction that I could find, nor could I find any usable damage pics. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA passed

[edit]

Good job on fixing those so quickly. Make sure that all new information is properly sourced with inline citations if possible. If you can, keep expanding, but I'm sure you have other hurricanes to take care of. Keep up the good work, and I'll hopefully get to reviewing a few more of your articles later this week. --Nehrams2020 23:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

[edit]

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 have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after I passed it in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. A direct inline citation should be provided for "The closed roads and the airport in La Paz and southern Baja California left tourists stranded, leaving some to resort to bribery to obtain alternative flights." It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. 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) 09:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hurricane Ignacio (2003). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Ignacio_(2003)&oldid=1211226050"