Talk:Hurricane Erika (2003)

message: More storm history, the formation section is just plain wrong (they didn't upgrade it due to the lack of a well-defined surface circulation), more intro (actually explain why the storm is notable, which I cannot find yet), get rid of the winds section and put it in storm history, and a hell of a lot more impact. Why should this storm have an article? I propose this be merged, given its lack of effects and notability. Hurricanehink 00:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor damage and 2 deaths?  This storm clearly doesn't deserve an article. — jdorje (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I'll get the axe ready. Hurricanehink 03:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, it's merged. Hurricanehink 14:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo/Merge

message: More storm history, fix the typos, more impact, do something with the winds section.... The whole thing needs a rewrite. If no one will rewrite it, then it should be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Better? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 14:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A little bit, but it's still missing a lot. The impact and storm history should both be expanded. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo/Merge 2

message: OK, I just finished redoing it. I might have found a good image to use, located here, but it's a joint work between NASA and Japan. Is that allowed or not? Other than that, is it B class? Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2 mistakes:
*"Operationally Erika was never upgraded to hurricane status. Based on a 
persistant eye feature on radar, and Doppler radar estimated surface winds of 75 mph (120)- that should say 120 km/h.
*"border in mid-August of the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season."- link wasn't finished.1998's Mitchazenia (joking) 22:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixed. You know, you could of just fixed it yourself. I think it's a B-class, shall I upgrade it? íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ohhh. I hate when that happens. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I'm glad I'm in college. Still, wouldn't it have been faster if you made the corrections originally, without even posting it in here?? :P Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 3 

message: :1. Well written? Pass
:2. Factually accurate? Pass
:3. Broad in coverage? Pass
:4. Neutral point of view? Pass
:5. Article stability? Pass
:6. Images? Pass
This is an article that meets the requirements. 
I was just wondering if there was some material that could be added about the oil down-production in Texas, as to find out if it affected the USA consumption. Lincher 02:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just searched a bit, and its passage only had minimal effects on the oil operations. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just did a few copyedits, and left a couple of comments inline (with ), but overall, the article is A-Class. It would be nice to ask Nilfanion and Thegreatdr for landfall radar and total rainfall imagery, respectively. Titoxd(?!?) 06:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I asked Thegreatdr a few weeks ago about a rainfall imagery, and this is what he said. "I'm planning on doing a graphic for Mexico. I'll check to see if I've created a spreadsheet for Florida...I think I already have. If the rainfall isn't online now, it will be when the Mexican rainfall is added in." I guess that means it won't take too long. As for the article, it wasn't a fujiwhara, as it was not two tropical systems. The TCR says nearly developed, so I guess that works. I also tried finding some free impact pictures, but no luck. This was the only site I could find that had impact pictures. This newspaper had a pic of people boarding up in south Texas (usable but not that useful), though not too much out there on the storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All right, that makes sense. Impact pics would be nice, but I know they're hard to acquire. How about the radar pic? Titoxd(?!?) 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, I see you've asked him on his talk page. Never mind, then.  Titoxd(?!?) 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA passed

message: Substituted at 18:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Erika Aug 16 2003 1655Z.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 24, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-05-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Erika Aug 16 2003 1655Z.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: *Duplicate links
*Alt text needed
*Reference formatting issues
*Where is the 100,000 coming from? Is that a typo?
Leaving notes here. NoahTalk 21:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: CCI check not done. NoahTalk 21:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:URFA/2020]] 

message: the article seems emperatively vandalized! 2605:A601:9187:8A00:2DD:8A36:1B2B:11BA (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "struck extreme" vandalism?