Talk:Hurricane Lili

Why the date?

The storm was retired after 2002, so why do we need (2002)? CrazyC83 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

Impact! Hurricanehink 19:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• New Orleans, LA report
• Houston, TX report

These should probably be included. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deaths and damage

I fixed the deaths total and clarified the damages. The $860 million is damage from the U.S. Damage elsewhere is unknown (can anyone find it?) but probably surprisingly high, considering the storm destroyed 50,000 homes (probably leaving 100,000+ homeless) in Cuba. — jdorje (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Copyright violation?

The "Observation" section seems to be stolen directly from http://www.cubahurricanes.org/history-hurricane-lili.php - which is not even listed in the references. — jdorje (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I mean to say that the whole storm history is taken from that page. — jdorje (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I mean to say that page is probably taken from wikipedia. Here is the edit that added all of that text...but comparing the two versions, it looks like the cubahurricanes page has a bad copy-and-paste that has broken some wikification (like the first sentence and the "Observation" header); it's not too likely that a copy-and-paste from that page would just happen to wikify perfectly. — jdorje (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Lili at peak intensity image

File:Lili.A2002275.1645.1km.jpg

Hurricane Lili near peak intenisty

How about this? Irfanfaiz 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, but do you have one that's a bit closer up? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its a PD image, so you can do whatever you like with it - so start with the 250m resolution version (higher the res the better) and crop it.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If no one minds, I'll put it in the infobox. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is large by the way... Irfanfaiz 04:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Landfall

I found a gogeous pic of Lili at landfall. It is huge, but very high quality. Much better than that crayon drawing we have now of Lili's landfall. Should it be included?I found it here. I highly think it should be added to the page. →Cyclone1→ 16:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The current one is nice and zoomed in. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thats huuuuge, i'll crop it :P. Irfanfaiz 06:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't crop more or that description on the lower left hand corner will bother the image a bit.

Here's the results anyway.

I vote put it in. →Cyclone1→ 18:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible reason for sudden weakening before Louisiana landfall

Could it be that the outflow of the cooler waters of the Mississippi River from Hurricane Isidore crossing Lili's path caused it to weaken dramatically? The same could be said for Hurricane Rita passing through the runoff of Hurricane Katrina. I have heard that the Mississippi River runoff has been slowly eroding the Southwest Louisiana coastline near Cameron, LA and Port Arthur Texas for decades. This could be the result of the dikes and levees put in place to keep the Mississippi River from swallowing New Orleans.

I'm not sure. Isidore was only a tropical storm when it moved through the waters where Lili rapidly weakened, so I personally don't think that's likely. According to NASA research in this link, low-level dry air was partially responsible for the storm's weakening. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the water temperatures just offshore Louisiana were down in the mid to upper 70s (25-26C). Someone should look this up, but that alone would do the trick. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

• Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

• If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

• Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Is it possible to find a source saying that there were no deaths in Mississippi? For example, a chart showing deaths from the storm that doesn't show it, or just a statement saying there were no deaths there.

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):

   Is it possible for you to have more images in the article? There is only two currently.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Great job, but I'd like to see these two comments addressed. Hello32020 (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the rainfall image, so now there are 3 images. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold on. There are other issues, as well. Major MoS issues. Incosistent numbers, a couple typos, weak writing in some areas. Also, there's got to be more damage pictures. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are sentences like this: By far the most severely impacted provinces were Pinar Del Rio and La Habana.. "By far" is not an encyclopediac term. Huge fish kills... What does that mean? Surely there's more aftermath. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to avoid the GA limbo caused by the NobleSith's departure. Let me look over the article to see what still needs to be fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the wording. Five more images have been added, but I have yet to find a (fair use) damage picture we can use within wikipedia for anywhere outside the United States (I'll search for a little longer). Corrected casualty number inconsistency, that stems from NHC report which says 16 but only lists 15. There is a significant amount of aftermath already in this article. Fish kills is actually wikilinked, so that will lead to a small description of what a fish kill is. Any issues remaining to be fixed? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Good job fixing up the issues listed. I will pass this article since it now satisfies the good article criteria. If you can find a damage picture, terrific, but if it isn't possible, that's okay. Hello32020 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Deadliest and Costliest

I believe the lead is incorrect according to Wikipedia's own infoboxes Hurricane Isidore holds both of those titles. --Kuzwa (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Todo 2

Although this article is list as a GA, the standards have changed, and I believe that a re-assessment could be possible. There are several reasons why:

• Some sentences are missing punctuations.
• There are a few unsourced statements.
• Dead links
• The titles are incorrect on the NHC references. In addition, NHC should be spelled out, as well as FEMA.
• Some of the references have both first and last names written, while others only have the last name.
• On reference #33, all of the names are capitalized.
• There is an error with reference #35.--12george1 (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with the caps, names, and acronyms. There should no longer be dead links. Reference 35 was redone, but still isn't in the proper format. I bet it's an easy fix, though it escapes me right now. If there are unsourced statements, place fact tags to point them out. And no, GA standards were no different when this article passed GA than they are now. It just wasn't a thorough review. If you see punctuation issues, be bold and fix them. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)