Talk:1996 Pacific hurricane season

message: I've expanded the sections on Douglas and Fausto, based on the NHC reports.-- Erimus, 3/1/06
Elida? Jdorje 03:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genevieve? juan andrés 04:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put  because there are sections with less than two lines! juan andrés 04:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is in need of love. Fausto made landfall in Mexico twice. It killed one person is not a complete section, neither description. It's a poor inaccurate sentence. Also two storms are missing juan andrés 04:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a lot of love to this article... all that's needed now is more pictures. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: In need of love

message: The units should be in line with other seasons. What that line is under discussion, but at the very least knots and nautical miles should be converted. When referring to unnamed storms, do not call them by their number, as they do not have names. In the sections, try and keep it fairly linear and organized. I notice some sections jump, particularly due to the forced spacing. For example, the section on Tropical Storm One gives its storm history, then it says its peak intensity. When did it reach its peak strength? The same goes for all other sections that do that. There's more little things like that. Also, sentences like these bother me and don't seem particularly well written. One person was killed in Tecpan. Near that location, three other people drowned. Five fishers were missing from near Tecpan. Isn't there a way to combine the three very similar sentences into one? Try and use active voice more and less linking verbs, whenever possible. Check for typos, as well. Satellite images for all of the storms would be good. All in all, not too much needs to be done. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: After reviewing the article, it is now of good quality. The style of writing is decent; it could be better in some spots. There were three typos, which I fixed. It is very factually accurate, no problems there. It is sufficiently broad for a season article — not too much detail and not too little. It is non-POV and stable. One problem is the lack of storm images, which would be a great improvement. All in all, it is good, though not perfect. It passes, nonetheless. Good job Miss Madeline. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: 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 2007. 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) 05:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: The article was recently remodeled to be in line with some of the other newer Atlantic season articles. However, it appears it is largely the same as the old version, with a little bit of information removed. There is no impact section in the current version. This season wasn't record-breaking, and in fact it was pretty below-average, in terms of activity. I don't think there should be a separate article, and I believe the article should be restored to its previous version. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. It's basically the same as the old revision, but with new formatting. The only difference now is that the article has no impact section and is poorly formatted. Either revert or send it to GAR. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format of article - revert? 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1949to2006_epa.txt
** In 1960 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 03:41:55, 404 Not Found
** In 1985 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 05:14:25, 404 Not Found
** In 1996 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-05-25 06:21:39, 404 Not Found
** In 2006 Central Pacific cyclone on 2011-05-26 01:58:29, 404 Not Found
** In 1960 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-04 18:56:59, 404 Not Found
** In 1960 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-04 22:02:27, 404 Not Found
** In 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane on 2011-06-06 21:13:26, 404 Not Found
** In 1985 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-07 11:47:27, 404 Not Found
** In 1996 Pacific hurricane season on 2011-06-08 04:09:38, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 1996 Pacific hurricane season. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1996unnamed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070820183334/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1996boris.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1996boris.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183033/http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/RWB.NSF/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/225921ce1d150f66c1256377003249a6?OpenDocument to http://wwwnotes.reliefweb.int/w/RWB.NSF/480fa8736b88bbc3c12564f6004c8ad5/225921ce1d150f66c1256377003249a6?OpenDocument
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722223004/http://gaceta.cicese.mx/ver.php?topico=especial&ejemplar=102&id=76 to http://gaceta.cicese.mx/ver.php?topico=especial&ejemplar=102&id=76
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070619030405/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov:80/1996hernan.html to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1996hernan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1996 Pacific hurricane season. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1996unnamed.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923101618/http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list to http://www.emdat.be/disaster-list
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/1996hernan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Tropical Strom Elida (1996). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Tropical Strom Elida (1996) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  CycloneYoris talk! 01:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tropical Strom Elida (1996)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]