Talk:Hurricane Manuel

(Redirected from Talk:Hurricane Manuel (2013))
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Good articleHurricane Manuel 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 Manuel is part of the Retired Pacific hurricanes 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 1, 2014Good article nomineeListed
August 1, 2014Featured topic candidatePromoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 17, 2013.
Current status: Good article

Untitled

edit

the link on See more detailed information. doesnt work and its in the pazific not in the atlantic ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.220.88.147 (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Combined information in the sources... should articles of Manuel and Ingrid be merged?

edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
It is clear that there is unanimous consensus against a merging of Hurricane Manuel (2013) and Hurricane Ingrid (2013). Given that this discussion has gone without any new commentary for nearly three weeks now, I am closing this. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

There are no sources for the alleged death toll of 84 people, as stated in the article.

Also, I have tried to find any source that distinguish the deaths nor damage by Ingrid from Manuel’s, but they appear together. Perhaps, wouldn’t it be reasonable to merge the articles about both cyclones, because of the particularity of this case? ... or to specify that it is a combined data from two cyclones?

Examples:

190.166.6.108 (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply


84 deaths is addition from everything in the article. Granted, I have not checked impact reports in days, but last week, when I saw some sources tat talk about just Manuel. Manuel did other impact in Sinaloa, which is IMO notable enough for an article on it's own. YE Pacific Hurricane 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Slight Oppose merge, it looks like there are some sources that talk about them together, and they are often associated, but I would still keep Ingrid and Manuel separate, as Manuel did other damage elsewhere. pie3141527182 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - different storm histories and impact areas. Yes they are associated with each other option, but their meteorological histories were different and warrant separate mention. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Merge - While impact from both hurricanes did overlap one another in some locations, damage from the two individually is still discernible. I see no reason to combine the articles together. In addition, the TCR on both in a few months should be helpful. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong Oppose Absurd proposal. They were two separate storms of little more than coincidental occurrence and thus take two separate articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deaths/Damage

edit

FYI, in response to this, this goes with new deaths/damage. However, I am semi-skeptical of this total, for one, the article sources EMDAT for the damage, which does not even mention Manuel. In addition, it seems like a drastic increase with at first glance, has no additional backing. Thoughts? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Long time no see, a blog post from Dr. Jeff Masters also supports the claim Manuel did 4.2 billion in damage and killed 169 people. It also says Ingrid killed 23 and did 1.5 billion in damage. But before we put that in, would that qualify as WP:RS? I believe it would. Rye998 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Rye, IMO JM is marginally reliable, but JM's total just seems too high. TAWX had an awesome idea, this, but the source provided mentions economical losses, not total damage, which I was told here that economical losses does not count as total damage. Tbh, I think that estimate is a bit high anyway, and I don't know why the missing people were removed, when the source mentions nothing about missing people. Still, I like the source used, though I am torn over whether to revert or not. For now, ill leave it as is; I feel bad on how I've reverted so many edits on this page within the past week. Any comments? YE Pacific Hurricane 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

I too think the 4.2 billion might be an overestimate, but 37.9 million (the damage before), is too low an estimate, IMO. Overall damage was probably near a billion dollars or so, but maybe we need to find something else that can verify total damage caused. The source seems reliable, but I'd like to see one that says "total damage", and one more recent than the last one. Rye998 (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

The original source is AON Benfield, definitely a reliable source in my opinion. I see no reason why we shouldn't use their total. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Of course it's reliable, and but it says that Maneul did 4.2 billion in economic loss. Does that count as total damage? That's my concern. Regarding 39.7 mil, if that's for its second landfall only. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Manuel/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello User:Yellow Evan, I am going to be reviewing this article tonight. You expressed urgency for it to be reviewed, as this effects a GT. So anyway, the following are issues I have with passing this article and listing it as a Good Article.--12george1 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow, just this! Thanks for the review. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Post GA todo

edit
edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Manuel. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Manuel. 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) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply