Talk:Hurricane Kenna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleHurricane Kenna 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.
Featured topic starHurricane Kenna is part of the Retired Pacific hurricanes series, a good topic. It is also part of the Category 5 Pacific hurricanes series, a featured topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 28, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
January 29, 2007Featured topic candidatePromoted
March 15, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
September 23, 2008Featured topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Todo[edit]

More impact. Jdorje 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Is it a B-class? I doubt it, but I'm just checkin'. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 15:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. A damage total would be nice, along with more info in general. Retired hurricanes should generally have a higher standard for articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but retirement means so much less outside of the Atlantic and West Pacific. In terms of actual damage this storm was comparable to 2005's Bret, so I wouldn't expect a very big impact section from this storm. However as a Category 5 hurricane a fairly hefty storm history should be possible. In particular the NHC struggled with the intensity forecast, look at this graph.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but how do you know the actual damage was similar to Bret's? The article says that 80 to 90% of the houses were damaged in one city, a few houses were destroyed. Also, Kenna is one of 5 retired EPAC hurricanes. You're right though, storm history should be longer. 48 hours before becoming a Cat. 5 it was only forecasted to get to 85 mph winds! --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah its crazy on the intensity, they admit that they always have problems with rapid intensifications. The TCR gives $5 million damages in Puerto Vallarta (population about 150K). According to this site San Blas has about 12K inhabitants. From that fact, my guess that the damage is about that is reasonable I think. However, reasoning (good or bad) is no good for the article, a number would be good...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should look before I speak shouldn't I? this USA Today article says early estimates of "more than $50 million". However my guess is almost certainly correct to within an order of magnitude, and <$100 million in Mexico will not give much info.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the damage in Puerto Vallarta is much more likely to be in the $50 million range than the $5 million. One hotel had a whole residential block demolished which alone would account for $5 million. Also 'hundreds of buildings were destroyed along coastal areas of Puerto Vallarta', seems a bit over the top. There was nothing like that much destruction. If you said between PV and San Blas then that is much more likely, though there was a lot of damage to businesses due to storm surge and flying debris though this was mostly not structural.--189.164.158.44 (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA on hold[edit]

I recently reviewed this article and I really feel that it is not ready to be a Good Article. After comparing this article to Hurricane Andrew (which is a Good Article), I rated it in the following way:

Well written: Failed, see below

Factually accurate and verifiable: Passed, many good references.

Broad in its coverage: Passed, includes all necessary information

Has Neutral Point of View: Passed, seems to be NPOV, statements about its destructive power and notability are stated objectively.

Stable: Passed, not frequently edited

Pictures: Passed, five meaningful pictures

I feel this article is poorly written. There are a few instances needing copyediting for grammar. Several confusing phrases appear (the first paragraph includes the phrases "strengthen lesser" and "favorable upper-level conditions" which made me scratch my head). The "Storm history" section is repetitive ("shortly after" is used far too many times). And overall, it just doesn't seem to flow well. This article does seem very promising (and I think that next time around it will be one), but I feel that this article needs more time and rewriting before it can be considered a Good Article. Thunderforge 21:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clear of what I meant. Basically, I mean that there are some sentences that are overly complex, such as the second one. I think that by reading the article aloud a few times, the instances where things just don't sound right will become evident. As for instantly failing the article, I apologize for that too. It's been a long time since I've reviewed Good Article Candidates and I wasn't aware that there was an "On Hold" status now. I would have given this article that rating had I known at the time. Thunderforge 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok, that makes sense. I gave it a copyedit, and I don't see anything wrong after two reads. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA[edit]

I made a few needed copyedits, and it's now suitable IMHO to be passed as a Good Article. So have you wished it, so shall it be... - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 16:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

typos everywhere.[edit]

why are all these hurricane articles so poorly written? Did someone just copy/paste this their term paper?

"There, sustained winds reached an estimated 06 mph (170 km/h).[" 68.38.197.76 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hurricane Kenna. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Kenna. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Kenna. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:URFA/2020[edit]

  • duplicate links
  • Alt text needed
  • Decent bit of academic lit

Listing at WP:FARGIVEN. CCI check not done. NoahTalk 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Kenna&oldid=1211227507"