# Talk:Hurricane Erin (2001)

Nice job hink. Start for now.|Mitchazenia 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Why not B? What more is needed? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I just seem the habit of starting every assessment at Start. Raise it if you wish.Mitchazenia 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, it's a policy, I can't :P However, you shouldn't start every assessment at start. The point of assessing an article is to say what else is needed if it is a start or stub. If it is at B class criteria (fairly comprehensive, inline sourcing, metrification), you can put it at B class right away. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand-even though i always wrote at the end (or usually): If you disagree, feel free to change it. Oh and i noticed something-doesn't Erin actually have affects on Newfoundland? The track makes it an almost-landfall.Mitchazenia 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I can't change it. You're not allowed to assess your own articles. In your mind, what is keeping this from being B class? ;) Yes, Erin does have effects on Newfoundland. The article clearly states that in the impact section. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh well=I'll change it.Mitchazenia 20:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've now put it up for GA nomination. I'll try to review it for potential for GA, A, or FA rating. Anyone want to help out with me in the reviewing process? CapeVerdeWave 12:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

1. It is well written. PASS
 
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. PASS

3. It is broad in its coverage. PASS

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. PASS

5. It is stable, i.e. it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism, or proposals to split/merge the article content. PASS

6. It contains images. SO-SO, BUT ADDITIONAL IMAGES CAN BE ADDED
Nice job at creating this article. Only possible recommendation is that some damage pictures (such as from Bermuda) can possibly be added, and that some slightly more detail can be added into the preparations and impact sections. Otherwise, no problems can be seen. Good job!
By the way, what is the ID number of this article (reviewed version)? How do I add the reviewed version? Please help. CapeVerdeWave 12:00, 15 November 2006, (UTC)

I added another image of the hurricane while it was south of Nova Scotia. There are more images out there, but this is an article, not an image gallery. I can't find any more preparations or impact, as the storm was mostly a fish storm. There are some impact pics from Bermuda from newspapers, but they're all copyrighted by AP. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's OK. The article is good as it is. By the way, what is the ID number of the article so I can add the reviewed version I did into the GA section? How do I find the ID numbers of Wikipedia articles? CapeVerdeWave 16:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for assessing it. I have no idea of what you do with the GA nomming, sorry. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a cool image of Hurricane Erin and 9/11 [1]. --IrfanFaiz 23:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

... and will rather be burned on the stake than testing data for evidence of weather modification [2] (which is illegal since 1978 [3]).
The main article must mention that a 911 conspiracy theorist -- Prof. Judy Wood [4] -- reports an astonishing con-incidence -- namely that Erin was heading towards NYC and abruptly changed course 130 (?) degrees at precisely (?) the time when Silverstein's WTC towers collapsed (in under 10 seconds, wink wink, nudge nudge). OK, it was about that time that Erin did change course -- when it was no longer needed to cover up a possible false flag operation mishap. This is a verifiable fact in that the observed synchronous circumstances are statistically astronomically unlikely. Should this be covered up -- it is another conspiracy -- and that's no april fool's joke. 124.197.44.44 (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I was tempted to remove this, but I'll humor you. ZOMG IT WAS ALL CHENEY'S FAULT! GAHHH!!!! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be prominently displayed, it's very important! (to show how ridiculous conspiracy theorists, especially that one, are). Batvette (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
It is strange how prior to the attacks this wasn't mentioned on the news. Shouldn't a hurricane of that size have had a massive amount of media attention as it was headed towards New York??? Normally these storms are tracked and predicted days in advance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.200.188.166 (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC) 

For the sake of our IP editor above, let me point out this was false. You can look at the hurricane track in the article; it was going in a more-or-less straight line, but wouldn't have come near NYC; that line intersects the coast in Maine or Massachusetts. I don't know why, but a lot of hurricanes take a curved path along the coastline, heading in towards Florida and out due east of Newfoundland without ever making landfall.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

This line seems like it has missing information:
"On September 9 Erin intensified into a hurricane while located 275 miles (440 km), ..."
While located 275 miles where?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.133.235 (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Erin (2001). 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/20061002104728/http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm01.html to http://www.atl.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm01.html
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) 22:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)