Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

message: In section second and third landfalls it says "forward speed was 15 mph (10 km/h)", however 15 mph and 10 km/h are different speeds. I don't know which number is correct though. Somebody who does should fix this.
This was a copy-and-paste of a section in the main Katrina article, so it needs an intro (and the main article may still need to be pruned). --AySz88^-^ 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added and intro and cleaned the article up some.  I'll check the main article now and prune. --AySz88^-^ 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done, but wasn't able to do much in the main article :/. --AySz88^-^ 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: Most of the information is already included in the Hurricane Katrina article, and the only thing that would really need merging is the final paragraph of this article, as everything else is either unnecessary detail or worded more concisely in the main article. So, should it be merged or deleted? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no particular objection.  Originally I took the old storm history from the Katrina article and moved it here, then condensed it greatly in the main article.  This version is still about twice as long, and could surely be made longer.  The question is whether there's any reason to do such a thing. — jdorje (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With the exception of the records part, I don't see why it should be expanded more than this. Any reader that requires the exact hour at which Katrina became a Category 2 hurricane would probably be looking at the TCR anyway. There's way too many subpages of Katrina, some of which have excessive information, so I'll send it to AFD. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Er, wasn't the content at the main Katrina article already in this article (I think)?  I'm not sure exactly what you did, since the diff is marking basically everything as changed.... --AySz88^-^ 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: I reverted this edit because I felt that it was redundant with both other sections on this page and with the Storm History at Hurricane Katrina, and because it had a lot of impact information which isn't really within the scope of this article.  I advised Wikid77 on his user talk page to avoid impacts and if he still feels any things aren't redundant to add them to their respective articles/sections. —AySz88\^-^ 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert note 

message: I enjoy reading this article, as the story of meteorogical history of Hurricane Katrina flows smoothly from the formation to the demise with a clear well-written prose that a non-specialist reader, like me, can grab the whole article without any problem. This article is also supported by reliable sources and it can be verified easily with inline citations. The subject of this article is the meteorogical history of Katrina and it is indeed about it from the lead section till the end, making this article broad enough in terms of its topic without diverging into the Katrina disaster at all. The lead section is also very nice to summarize this meteorogical history. I see no NPOV problem, as it is only factual text, and thus this article does not suffer any edit wars (it is stable). 
However, I see 2 problems in the images used, which can prevent me to grant GA status of this article: 
# Image :Image:Katrina_2005_track.png has wrong license tag, as it comes from NASA, not own work. It can be easily changed its tag. 
# Image :Image:Katrina_vs_sea_surface_height.JPG is copyrighted, thus it is not suitalble for Wikipedia.
I put this article as ON HOLD in the WP:GAC. Please leave me a message, as soon as the above problems are fixed. — Indon (reply) — 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Katrina map is own work (mine). Its only the BG map that is NASA...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The first second image should be usable, as "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose."  I think it (and similar images) was released by Jim Scott at the University of Colorado, like :Image:Wilma oct24 11am.jpg (which actually mentions the e-mail). —AySz88\^-^ 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA comments 

message: Could someone clarify this in the lead? Would be more readable for those who are unfamiliar. --Brand спойт 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was named Tropical Depression Twelve.  It seems clear enough.  ShadowHalo 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical Depression Twelve 

message: The National Weather Service issued a warning in the strongest terms at 4:13 pm CDT on August 28, see .  I assume from the URL that this came from the Southern Region Headquarters.  Should this be addressed in the article?  John M Baker 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure... it already has its own article, though. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added a sentence with a cross-reference to the article.  John M Baker 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NWS Warning 

message: Looking at this as part of the ongoing FA sweeps.  This one has some uncited text, including an entire paragraph in the second and third landfalls section.  Additionally, all but a single sentence of this article is source to National Hurricane Center reports.  This extreme reliance on the NHC seems problematic with WP:FACR #1c, given the vast amounts of scholarly literature about Katrina. Hog Farm  Talk 15:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article concerns 

message: The following is copied from FAC1 $Citation checks. These points need to be addressed before a second nomination. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outstanding FAC citation checks