Talk:Hurricane Lane (2006)

Hurricane Lane (2006) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Hurricane Lane (2006) is part of the 2006 Pacific hurricane season series, a featured 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.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 22, 2010.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 11, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
January 29, 2008	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 29, 2010	Featured topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Mexico Mid‑importance

	Mexico portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Assessment

B-class? íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 16:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. I'd do it, but I wrote the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review process

NPOV:OK
breadth:Needs more discussion of on the ground factors. What kind of housing stock was affected? building types? More on structural nature of the damage. More detail on crops and infrastructure damage. Any wet weather overflow? (SSO)
accuracy: appears OK
sources:sufficient on line, but what about a couple of books or print articles?
prose:needs to conform to WP style guide, especially for spacings and when to write out small numbers; also intro should be a bit more comprehensive.
images:not bad, but how about one ground based image?
stability:OK

Anlace 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no books yet (the storm occurred just a few months ago), and there are no print articles that I know of. There are no free ground based images, as the hurricane hit in Mexico and all images I have seen are copyrighted by news sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your point on the images of aftermath, but there must be some photos around of the areas before the hurricane actually hit to give the reader a sense of the areas that were affected. Regarding print ads, even better referencing of the newspaper articles will do. the problem is, that by relying on on-line sources alone, some of these url s will die off. In fact one of your on line cites is already dead. Anlace 05:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, even on wikipedia, there are photos of some of the places you discuss (eg Culiacán). i am not proposing that image but i think you can find a free image of at least one pre-impact site. good luck with the article improvements. Anlace 06:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, images aside, is there anything actionable I can do, as images are not a requirement for GA's. Having done hurricane articles for about a year now, I've seen that not all online urls die off. There exists a lot of online newspaper sources for a hurricane back in 1999, for example. Online sources generally provide just as good information as newspaper sources unless the newspaper is in Spanish from the landfall area. Unfortunately, I don't have any access to Sinaloa spanish newspapers, so that isn't really actionable. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the style guide and breadth issues above. These items are more critical than images for the GA. Also remove non working links (i found one in random checking of two) and supply at least a couple of permanent non on line newspaper refs. Anlace 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked, and that is all that is available for info. I'd like more info regarding the breadth issues, but there aren't. I don't see why it is so imperative to use non-online sources. I've written 11 featured articles that do not use non-online sources at all. I added more lede and added 's to numbers. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't know how the hurricane articles work. No-one is going to bother writing books about minor hurricanes that didn't even affect the U.S., and even that, just a few months ago. Please be realistic - there's plenty of tropical cyclone GAs and FAs without offline sources. – Ch acor 01:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem I can see with this article is just a couple of resources, such as $109 million needs to be ciated. Other than that, I am happy to promote this article to GA status! Please tell me once the changes have been made. J a s rocks ^(talk) 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the impact section. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry don't know the exact methods you use. Must of missed that. Other than that the article looks all good, so I will promote it. Thanks for the quick response :) J a s rocks ^(talk) 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA status

Have upgraded this article to GA status. Believe that it is well written and all images are properly tagged, as well as there being many references. Well done! J a s rocks ^(talk) 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damages?

There is serious disparity between the infobox and the text... and this carries over to the seasonal article too.--Nilf anion (talk) 22:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a serious disparity. One thing I noticed was that the damage total in the lede was not updated, but the impact section, Infobox, and season article were all updated. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Units of measure

The article is Mexico-centric, and it appears that Mexico is on the metric system. Shouldn't the primary measurements be in meters, etc., and the parenthetical translation into Imperial/US units? Not changing it myself, in case this has already been discussed. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving the following here from WP:ERRORS. It should be discussed here and then brought back to WP:ERRORS if there is consensus for a change. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

As posted at the article's talk page, the article is Mexico-centric, and Mexico uses the metric system. Is there a reason why the article uses Imperial units, instead of metric, with the Imperial/US units in parentheses? I didn't change it, as it seems this might have been brought up before, and perhaps there was a reason.

While there, I noticed that the damage in MXN was converted to USD, presumably for the benefit of US readers and global readers who might be more familiar with the relative value of the dollar than of the peso. Given that, I added an equivalent in 2010 USD, sourced in the comment to the edit at the main article. This is not large for an event of four years ago, but if the storm were in, say, 1955, it's a huge difference that needs to be put into modern perspective. So it seems it would be best to be consistent. If this is not the consensus, I surely won't argue if that addition is reverted; else, please change the lede accordingly.

As edited at the main article, "Damage was heaviest in Sinaloa where the hurricane made landfall, ... " a comma was added after "Sinaloa". The reason is that without it, the literal meaning is that in Sinaloa, the damage was heaviest in the parts of Sinaloa where it made landfall. Yet the context indicates that we want to say that the entire landfall state of Sinaloa bore the heaviest damage, which has already been stated. Therefore, "where the hurricane made landfall" is a parenthetical phrase, which should be bracketed by commas to make the meaning unambiguous. Please edit the lede accordingly. Unimaginative Username (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

”

Well, it's too late now for a Main Page change. I put it there because it was on the front page, and it seemed that the US units in a metric-based country were a glaring error for a front-page article. So whatever the consensus, no need to move it back to WP:Errors. I guess none of the Admins cared.

The other changes aren't so significant, and are a part of the article here now. Of course, anyone can change them. It's just that seeing the second and third of the above items in the lede, and having edited them accordingly here (which is the standard procedure), I called them to the attention of the Main Page folks so that the blurb there would be consistent with the article itself. Thanks for your time and trouble. Unimaginative Username (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hurricane Lane (2006). 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Lane (2006)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a light copyedit for GA, and ideally, some pictures for A. Tito xd^(?!?) 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 18:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Lane (2006). 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) 23:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Lane (2006). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010102834/http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1158579059150550.xml&coll=2 to http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews%2F1158579059150550.xml&coll=2

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) 00:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Lane (2006). 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) 10:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]