Talk:Hurricane Manuel

Hurricane 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.

Hurricane 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
Date	Process	Result
July 1, 2014	Good article nominee	Listed
August 1, 2014	Featured topic candidate	Promoted

A 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

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

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

This article was nominated for merging with Hurricane Ingrid (2013) on 27 September 2013. The result of the discussion was Keep.

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:

Manuel and Ingrid: 145 deaths Aumentan a 145 los muertos por Manuel e Ingrid, informador.com.mx

Manuel and Infrid: Damage to 35,000 houses Manuel e Ingrid dejan al desnudo corrupción, frivolidad y falta de planeación, SDPnoticias.com

Manuel and Ingrid: Losses of almost US$6 billion Manuel e Ingrid dejaron pérdidas por 75 mil mdp: AMIS, eluniversal.mx

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. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 12:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, the hurricanes are notable by their own to be in one article. I was thinking to create an article in my sandbox based upon Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, because the effects go beyond the current information both articles have, but I wouldn't do it until November or December. If somebody is bold enough to create it, a merge is unnecessary and probably incorrect (Manuel didn't affect Tamaulipas, as far as I know). Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 08:50, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose merge, those 2 storms are nowhere near being one and the same. Separate storms should always have their own articles; not sharing articles. Those articles should definitely not be merged. Whose idea was this anyways?? LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose – This is complete nonsense. They were two different systems. United States Man (talk) 04:24, 6 October 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? Y E ^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? Y E ^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. Y E ^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. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Within favorable conditions aloft, the storm intensified into a tropical storm" - I think it should be just "With favorable conditions", because it wasn't inside the favorable conditions. Not like "a tropical wave within the ITCZ".
- Yea, it was actually. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The following day, Manuel curved westward and strengthened to a point just shy of hurricane intensity before making its first landfall at that intensity." - Might want to throw a date in here somewhere, because (1. we are talking about two days here and (2. you are also assuming the reading knows what date "The following day" is referring to.
- Noted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"additional impacts from Atlantic Hurricane Ingrid. After its" - I think you should wikilink Atlantic hurricane here, unless you want to practice basinism :P
- I practice EPACism. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There, 20,000 persons were evacuated to shelter." - I think you need to add an "a" between "to" and "shelter".
Wow, I am completely satisfied with the MH, Preps, Impact, and Aftermath!
- D :D :DD No kidding. 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
On reference #1, change "Pasch, Richard J; Zelinsky, David A" to "Richard J. Pasch; David A. Zelinsky. Also, why isn't the National Hurricane Center on there?
- Did both. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking down further at reference #9 and #10, it looks like Richard Pasch and David Zelinsky lost their middle initial.
- You can blame Hink, he wrote the MH when he was active. Think of this positively, it set him up to do other TC articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reference #11, John Cangialosi's middle initial is "P."
- Noted. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On references #35, #38, #46, #51, #52, #54, #65, #96, #98, and #106, you have the publisher as "Relief Web". It should be "ReliefWeb" - one word.
- Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #92 is a deadlink. Replace the url with this one and archive it.
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On reference #101, the title should start with a capital letter
- Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, YE! I am now going to pass this article and list it as a GA. Btw, good luck in round 4 of the WikiCup. Congratulations,--12george1 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post GA todo[edit]

1
2
3
4 (last two are emergency declarations)
I should probs add in watches and warnings. Surprised that never came up in the GA review. Ill see if I can pass the 60kb banner. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130919112624/http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=223836651 to http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=223836651

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: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[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: 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) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]