This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Yes, it's definitely B. It could be ready to be nominated for A although a close inspection/copyedit might be warranted first. Also, is there anything to be found about aftermath? —
jdorje (
talk)
04:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
That bit of trivia is so egregiously wrong it brings into question the accuracy of the entire rest of the article... —
jdorje (
talk)
01:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Calm down, I accidentally removed in July, and I fixed it. That's a pretty harsh statement to question the accuracy of the rest of the article, given the amount of references. Don't worry, the rest, according to the refs at least, is accurate.
Hurricanehink02:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Haha, I figured that out about the july thing when i was at my mom's house (with no computer). Sorry. O well its in the past. Lol
Cyclone120:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)reply
It's "reconnaissance", not "reconaissance". I think this error is in a bunch of articles. I didn't even notice it until the link turned up red.
"50 mph storm" does not make sense; a storm cannot "be" 50 mph. Wording like this should be changed to "storm with 50 mph winds".
There's one sentence I didn't understand: "Shell limited their oil totals to around 15% and natural gas totals to around 4%, while Marathon lowered their daily total to 2% for oil and 1.5% of its natural gas production." Does this mean they limited their losses to 15%, or that they were only producing 15% of their normal totals?
Another sentence, in the aftermath, now reads "with the other 25% being covered by local agencies". This used to say through local agencies. The old text was confusing; is the new text correct?
Eventually someone will complain that the retirement section is only one sentence and try to remove it. For it to stay it will need to be lengthened.
The intro could be lengthened a bit, with mention of the storm's effects outside of texas.
You got it. It was black and white. Very few articles have black and white images. The colored image is, well, more colorful. In addition, the colored image basically the same as the previous one.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
02:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)reply
Rainfall
The rainfall image was updated to include Mexican amounts and place a color-filled image. It doesn't look much different, actually, but it appears to be complete.
Thegreatdr20:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)reply
All the rain reports from the Yucatan peninsula were under 1 inch. Apparently, Cancun did receive over an inch though, but that's one observation on one island. I wouldn't know the best way of handling that with isohyets...you need more than one observation to draw an isohyet.
Thegreatdr12:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm brand new to Wikipedia, but as I learn more about it, I'm finding that changes to articles of this caliber are best meshed out in the Talk section first. Before I realized that, I made a couple of changes to the article that reflect the surprise elements of the storm. As this storm hit us hard, I know that it was at least 12 hours ahead of schedule and much stronger than it was advertised. I tried to cite sources in the archives of the NHC and in a report put out by NWS-Corpus Christi. If anyone can give me pointers on how to cite, I would appreciate it. I see what y'all have done, but I don't see it explained that way in the Help section of Wikipedia. It's Greek to me.
user:Scarro66
Wikilinking ... in the lead, no link to Category I storm, for example ... and Texas is linked twice in the lead ... beer
MOS:OVERLINK ... please check throughout.
User:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful.
Many of the sources are incomplete or go to dead links. All sources need a publisher (many are missing), and if a full date is available, it should be used.
Here are some sample edits I made from one section only.
A copyedit would not be remiss ... "resulting in widespread and often unnecessary preparations along its path" ... widespread preparations ??
PS, too many URFA articles to track, so unwatching, pls ping me when I should revisit (alternately, mark article "satisfactory" at
WP:URFA/2020 when changes are complete and article is at standard, and then someone will revisit).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
01:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)reply
There also seems to be some unrepresented research -
Not all that much about this one, but considering that no scholarly analysis is represented in this article, the sourcing cannot be really considered comprehensive. Pinging
SandyGeorgia so they are aware of these comments.
Hog FarmTalk02:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)reply