Talk:Hurricane Georges

message: :::Here's an idea for someone who wants to help. I am too lazy to do it, but someone can do a section about the coral reef in the impact section. In Florida, 36 colonies were lost, according to here, and this page shows pictures. Here is a page about what occurrs during a hurricane's passage, and this page shows how the coral was lost in the Lesser Antilles. Such a section might get a little boring and a little hard to do, but it could be part of a broader Environmental Damage section, which could include if animals were killed from the flooding in Mississippi or other damage to the environment. I'm not sure if the crop damage should be included there, as it all fits into the overall damage to an area. However, if there's enough info, someone could make a section about damage to mother nature. Hurricanehink 21:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Floyd also has an "Environmental effects" section in the Aftermath.  This sounds like a similar thing. — jdorje (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Coral reef

message: ::For more on evacuations, shelters, and traffic flow, you can go here. I can't go through the 100 pages of information, but it has good info on the hurricane if anyone wants to add it. Hurricanehink 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Info on evacuations

message: Done! I guess... Hey, I'm only human (this is in reference to the notes I added). Next on the todo list is metric conversions. Hurricanehink 03:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's a lot of notes.  BTW, if you don't add a "name" to a reference, it will display a little prettier at the bottom.  I think names should only be used when a reference is used more than once (but it's not a big deal, if you're not sure if the reference will be used it's fine just to add the name). — jdorje (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, I just put a ref for every link. I'll do that later on. (I'll do conversions later as well. (Linked so I can do it at school). Hurricanehink 12:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: There's a whole collection of satellite images here. — jdorje (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably enough images, but good find nevertheless. Hurricanehink 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image count is probably adequate or excessive even. I would like to see a bit more variety in the satellite pics. I mean 3 IR ones and no visible? I'd say one of each is much more appropriate.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never thought of it, but visibles would look very nice in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  images 

message: I bumped this to A-class.  Taking it to FA-class will be a lot of work since it's such a big article.  For one thing, the quality of citations needs to be improved (see Hurricane Floyd for sample style). — jdorje (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could do with splitting the impact section into Preparations, Impact and Aftermath. It may need a bit of aggressive editing to reduce the length slightly too.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big yes on the last one. I split up the preparations, and I'll have to find some aftermath. The preparations seems to be a little too long, so that's where a good cleanup/removing is needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On a separate note, I found this, and from a quick glance, it may be useful. I didn't read it, but those more familiar with the storm can tell me... Titoxd(?!?) 03:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed you used that Isabel pic in all the articles. If you're interested I made this one of Georges in about the same proportions :link. I'm still looking for some really good landfall pics over Mississippi and Puerto Rico (as well as Hispaniola and Cuba). Good kitty 20:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty good, but is there one of it at its peak intensity? (just curious) Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I could find was this , but it was cut down the middle. Also, the B&W one in the article infobox and the AVHRR I put on the season page are both borderline category 4 hurricanes. Nothing else seems to exist. Good kitty 22:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, that would've been nice. What about that program you use? Is there an image of Georges at that time period? Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, but there was nothing there. The pic in the infobox isn't so bad because I forgot that it was still a powerful cat4 at the time. This thing lost its eye almost as soon as it peaked, just before it took a trip to one Caribbean island after another. It never really got a chance to reorganize. I found a good pic of it at landfall, although it was extremely corrupt. I fixed it up a bit and put it on the main page. Good kitty 03:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next TODO 

message: Given how much more work is needed, I propose it be dropped to GA class. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: A good clean-up should fix it.Mitchcontribs 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: I must disagree with the delisting of this article, as being "clean" is not in the GA criteria, and I can find no major fault with the article from a GA standpoint besides the odd "other notes" section which should probably be incorporated into the rest of the article if necessary. That alone doesn't seem to me to be a good reason for this article to not be a GA, and therefore, i'm filing a WP:GA/R over this article. Homestarmy 23:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Listen, I meant to drop it to GA, but another user, who focuses on the same topic suggested B, so I took his advice. Sorry if it sets you off. If you want, i will have it quickly back to GA.Mitchcontribs 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw this on the log was all, its nothing personal, there's no hurry. For all I know, I might be wrong about this article, I just don't see why is all. Homestarmy 00:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well let me talk to the user again, and besides when my project is done, I hope this to be a FA. Its certainly not A class like it was.Mitchcontribs 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA/R

message: In a 6 to 0 unanimous decision, arrived after several editors who brought up points I didn't notice agreed that the problems were solved, this article has been relisted as a GA. While there was one recommendation to maintain B status until it was ready, it seems pretty clear to me from the comments afterwards that it is indeed quite ready. Review archived here: Wikipedia:Good article review/Archive 28 Homestarmy 06:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA/R results

message: I reverted the file history by 68.0.62.172; possible vandalism by this user. This article must be semi-protected to prevent vandalism. KingScreamer (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Could someone please look at how poorly the Impact section of Hurricane Georges was being edited-the grammar and editing are not that professional looking-they are, in fact questionable. Can somebody have these problems repaired?
UWEC/173.26.80.178 (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact Section of [[Hurricane Georges]] is unclean and badly edited 

message: Checks per Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones. 
: See CCI check at Effects of Hurricane Georges in Louisiana. Based on what was found there, copying within needs to be reviewed at least from this edit forward (and there may be more). SandyGeorgia (Talk)  01:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: CCI check