Talk:Hurricane Emily (1993)

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Hurricane Emily (1993) 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 Emily (1993) is part of the 1993 Atlantic 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 July 22, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 29, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
November 7, 2015	Featured article candidate	Promoted
June 26, 2016	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge

Too little info here for not notable enough of a storm, IMO. It caused very little damage and deaths, did not make landfall. I think it should be merged. Hurricanehink 20:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to agree. This one smells like a hated skin-and-bones article with little nutritional value :). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sort of swaying the other way. I has potential, but unless somebody adds some stuff, I think it should be merged back. Hurricanehink 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against merging this one...though it needs a good copyedit, the info is sound, and I think it's an important member of List of North Carolina hurricanes. Now Hurricane Gaston (2004), on the other hand... Jdorje 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it does have potential. Hurricanehink 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Gaston article. It is extensive enough to stay. Judge the article, not the storm. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judge the article, not the storm? You sound like me there. Isn't your normal argument exactly the opposite? Jdorje 01:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Yep, you guessed it...better intro, more impact! This article is almost there though. Jdorje 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we there yet? :) Hurricanehink 21:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I fixed up the intro and added reference tags. Only problem is one of the references is a broken link. Jdorje 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume the broken link refers to the drought and fire in Norfolk. The good news is a drought occurred in the southeast U.S. in the summer of 1993, as shown here. The bad news is the source only covers June and July, and doesn't even mention Hurricane Emily. I can't find a reference for the fire in Norfolk. Maybe you can ask Storm05? Hurricanehink 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Emily (1993)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 02:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hurricanehink! I will be reviewing this article tonight. As always, the article you submitted is decent and just short of being worthy of consideration for Good Article status. Here are my concerns:

"first hurricane of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season," - I think you should just this back because the reader will already know that this storm happened in 1993 based on the opening sentence. Even simply saying the "first hurricane of the season" would be good.
"In Buxton, the floods" - Wikilink to Buxton, North Carolina
"it was located 800 miles (1,300 km) east-northeast" - Abbreviate miles. But don't worry about Miles Lawrence :P

Disagree here. Per the WP:MOS, primary units need to be spelled out on first occurrence. Auree ^★★ 03:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"hurricane watch from Cape Romain, South Carolina to Fenwick Island" - Missing a comma
"A reliable but unofficial wind station reported a gust of 107 mph (172 km/h),[42] at a commercial building also in Buxton.[43] " - I don't think that comma is necessary

Addressed these concerns. Thanks for the review. Auree ^★★ 03:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. I will now pass this article.--12george1 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Emily (1993). 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/20080923023541/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1993.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1993.pdf

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) 13:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Emily (1993). 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/20151004101341/http://www.idia.net/Files/ConferenceCommitteeTopicFiles/62/PDFFile/C07-SHS-FEMAReform.pdf to http://www.idia.net/Files/ConferenceCommitteeTopicFiles/62/PDFFile/C07-SHS-FEMAReform.pdf

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) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing changes to get consensus with other editors on if the wording should stay or not

Hello everyone, I think that "as a result of Emily" at the end of the intro is unneeded verbosity and should be removed. I also think "The storm downed thousands of trees and wrecked 553 homes—168 of which completely destroyed—" reads rather awkwardly and needs to be revised. I'm not saying my proposed solution is the be all end all, and maybe there is a better way to rephrase but the current version really needs to go. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:207D:E29F:2835:885A (talk) 22 July 2021