Talk:Hurricane Inez

Latest comment: 4 years ago by TheHurricaneExpert 05 in topic Hurricane Inez
Good articleHurricane Inez 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 Inez is part of the 1966 Atlantic hurricane season 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
February 26, 2013Good article nomineeListed
August 26, 2014Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article


Replacement

edit

According this page, the name Inez was replaced by Isabel. But I couldn't find the information about it. Please tell me the web site which describes it.--HERB 15:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Todo

edit

Infobox picture is the wrong shape. Impact is nearly non-existent. Jdorje 05:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

(Sigh), I tried to give a little more impact, but, dude, there is nothing on this storm! I couldn't find anything! It's still next to nothing on the page. →Cyclone1 00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Damn, that sucks. Hurricanehink 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, 1966 doesn't have the NHC data online for some silly reason (1965 and 67 do). One minor tweak, alter that pic.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merge?

edit

This article needs to be either remade or merged. The information box and picture needs to be fixed a bit, and the introduction, storm history, and impact sections are not written very well or detailed. If nothing can be done, I vote for a temporary merge. CapeVerdeWave 02:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Huge no on merge. This hurricane was retired. It can still be remade. I doubt many people even check up on this storm. If anyone wants to, they can just do what I've done before. Rewrite each section, section-by-section until it's good. The main problem with this storm is that there's not a lot of information on it. Here's a little info I found.
I'm sure there's more, but I don't have time to look through all of Google. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I improved the introduction and storm history sections and added sources. I am going to remake the entire article, add more details and sources, improve the writing, and expand/improve the impact section and try to add a detailed preparations section. Does it already look better? I might change the introduction and storm history sections around a bit until I find the writing and deatails look best. Is that OK as well? CapeVerdeWave 04:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The overall format is a lot better. Good luck remaking the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, I found an interesting radar image I added. Does it look good, or is there a problem with it (e.g., copyrighted)? CapeVerdeWave 03:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Nice pic. It's Public Domain, as it's part of NOAA (it's mentioned at the top). --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

[1] [2]

Book info

edit

Here are a few scanned pages from Barnes, Jay (2007). Florida's Hurricane History. Chapel Hill Press. ISBN 0-8078-3068-2. on the effects of Inez in Florida, Cuba, and the Bahamas for inclusion in the article. The first page is page 231 and the last is 234 (I just typed that one out, because scanning it was too much work). This stuff is mostly available on Google Books, so there shouldn't be a copyright problem. Juliancolton (talk) 03:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 04:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well-written:  

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Verifiable with no original research:
  •  

    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  • Broad in its coverage:
  •  

    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  •  

  • Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  •  

  • Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
  •  

    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 

    YE Tropical Cyclone

    edit

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Inez. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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 04:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

    edit

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Inez. 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) 23:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

    Hurricane Inez

    edit

    HYRDAT database has upgraded Hurricane Inez to a Category 5 (from 130 kts to 145 kts). This article needs sourcing from HYRDAT! TheHurricaneExpert 05 (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply