Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)

Hurricane Emily (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 26, 2021Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 9, 2025Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Todo

Shorter intro, more structure (subsections). Jdorje 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also to do

  • Change units to be metric first, since most of the areas affected use metric primarily
  • Make units rounded when the base unit is rounded
  • More Jamaica (number of houses damaged islandwide? power outages?)
  • Cuba impacts? Belize?
  • Split Carib into Lesser and Greater Antilles like it is in the preparations
  • Mexican aftermath

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Just nine days before"

The intro (and numerous other places) say that Emily broke dennis's nine-day-old record for July intensity. But such a claim of precision is very dubious. Dennis reached 150 mph/938 mbar on July 8 at 1200 UTC breaking Audrey's record (145 mph/946 mbar) then. However, it reached peak strength 140 mph/929 mbar on July 10 at 1200 UTC in the Gulf. Thus Dennis broke Audrey's record on the 8th and then broke its own record on the 10th. Emily broke Dennis's record reaching 155/929 on the 16th (pending TCR). I changed the wording in the intro to "just six days before" but it might be safer to be a little more fuzzy with "less than two weeks earlier". — jdorje (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Damages

Does anyone have a source for the correct estimate? It looks like the number in the infobox was taken from the estimate for Mexico alone. I was hoping the TCR would clear this up, but it hasn't. ETA: I changed the casualty figures to agree with what was in the TCR. Feel free to add a citation, although I didn't feel the need to since we are not doing this for all storms. Good kitty 22:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Mexico was around $400M and Grenada was $110M. Since there was some damage elsewhere as well (Texas, Jamaica, several other islands of the Windwards), I think the actual number is in the $550-600M range. CrazyC83 23:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At one point, back when the article was very incomplete, the infobox listed something like $600 million but the main article only listed a small fraction of that (adding mexico and grenada together), so I changed the infobox. Of course we should attempt to find the best possible estimates for each area and then just add them together to get the total - having a table here might be of some use. — jdorje (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Texas damage estimates cited are both contradictory and dubious. The article states that there was "no significant structural damage," but then immediately afterward states that "several homes were destroyed." Are destroyed homes not significant structural damage? Building damages in Texas are subsequentlky estimated at $125,000. Again, if "several" homes were actually destroyed, the damages would almost certainly be well in excess of $125,000, even in the poor Rio Grande Valley area of south Texas. Finally, the $178 million figure for south Texas crop losses is surely overstated. Such massive losses would have devestated agriculture in the Rio Grande Valley. Original sources may have provided these figures and information; but they are inaccurate nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.163.90.86 (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Since the name wasn't retired, should we abolish the redirect? I am not sure about this, so others should have their say. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 19:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? There will need to be major work done, to change all the Hurricane Emily links to Hurricane Emily (2005), because of this surprise (the biggest surprise since Gordon in 1994). Until that is all done, we should keep the main article as the redirect here. CrazyC83 02:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine either way. I also think it would be fine with 2005's Emily having the main name. — jdorje (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily I had a day off work and needed something to do... so I changed as many Hurricane Emily links as I could find (not on people's talk pages, just main articles) to Hurricane Emily (2005). Just go to the Hurricane Emily redirect page and click "What links here" in the toolbox on the side. That's how I found the links that needed changing. PenguinCDF 14:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it we have two choices.

  • Redirect Hurricane Emily to the disambiguation page, or simply move the disambiguation there.
  • Keep the 2005 storm under Hurricane Emily, since it is undoubtedly the most notable Hurricane Emily to date and therefore by wikiproject practices may get the main article name. Hurricane Emily (2005) would of course remain as a redirect.

The current method of redirecting Hurricane Emily to this article is bad. If we're going to do that we should just give this article the main name. However I do realize there's a lot of links to be fixed before we change the redirect. — jdorje (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Tropical_cyclone_article_naming. This may naturally need some revision after the current discussion as it's never been challenged before. — jdorje (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support keeping this article at the main name, unless/until? another Cat 5 Emily comes along. NSLE (T+C) at 04:55 UTC (2006-04-08)
At least altering the links is straightforward enough see Special:Whatlinkshere/Hurricane Emily (2005). Whether this storm gets Emily or Emily (2005), all the links (at least those in articles) should point to the article. Nilfanion 10:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Emily won't be used for another 6 years, I think it should be at Hurricane Emily, without the year. Hurricanehink 13:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 1987 and 1993 Emilies also have articles, the main article should be the disambiguation page once all redirecting is complete. CrazyC83 22:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The main article should be the disambiguation page, and the articles should all carry years. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only links to Emily which redirect from the main page to (2005) are in userspace, WP pages or talk pages - none from articles. If Emily is moved back to the main page, redirects through (2005) arent harmful are they? Nilfanion 22:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada Damage

Is the damage estimate for Grenada for the insured damage, or is total damages? Let me know soon okay.--Lionheart Omega 15:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

The storm history section is nicely written, but I'm concerned with the patchiness of the impact section. By my count there are four paragraphs that contain only one sentence, and another two paragraphs that contain only two. It gives the impression that you're trying to stretch a limited amount of information further than it can confortably be stretched. Can you edit this section so that it flows a bit more naturally, and perhaps add a few more details? MLilburne 11:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it looks a lot better. I have made a couple of small changes myself and will pass the article. MLilburne 17:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

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) 03:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animated image

This warrants inclusion: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/jul/emily-satellite.gif Plasticup T/C 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities and Damage totals

This section is for the cumulative fatalities and damages which will be listed by country.

Overall
  • 17 deaths (14 direct, 3 indirect), 1 missing
  • $1.014 billion (round to $1 billion)
Grenada
Jamaica
Haiti
Honduras
Mexico
  • Quintana Roo
  • Yucatan
  • Nuevo Leon
  • Tamaulipas
  • PEMEX (oil)
United States

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved; request withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl talk 02:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Hurricane Emily (2005) → Hurricane Emily – Obviously the most notorious Emily of all, was earliest C5 on record in the Atlantic and caused $1 billion in damages. More then enough to qualify as having the main title. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - This Emily was the most notable single use of the name for reasons you mentioned, but I'm not convinced it's the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per that policy, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." (emphasis mine) Several of the other storms named Emily had severe impacts on land. Emily 87 is frequently cited as the most destructive TC in Bermuda's history, Emily 93 caused significant damage in NC's Outer Banks, and Emily 11 was one of the wettest systems ever recorded in Hispaniola. Page views are not conclusive; while Emily 05 does have a consistent edge, it still receives fewer than 100 hits per day, such that it's not a vastly more likely target than all of the other storms combined. The difference isn't large enough to negate the inherent flaws of using page views as a determining factor for primary topics. I believe that with so many damaging storms named Emily, the disambiguation is appropriate. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Completely agreed with what Julian said. I'd like to add that Emily is on the list this year. Therefore it's more appropriate to have the disambiguation. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I withdraw the request per your reasons. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Emily (2005). 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:

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) 22:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significance

More needs to be reported on Emily's significance and the changes that she brought to South Texas. Damage was not as high as in the past, but she brought changes that linger to this day and have become a part of family lore for hundreds of thousands of Texans. No one will ever forget Emily, but we may forgive, as time goes by. Meanwhile, the next generations should be made aware of the storm's incredible impact and significance on our daily lives, even today. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)HWatcher[reply]

Dude, I think you are the only person in Texas who will "never forget" Emily, it was not a particularly bad storm, and it is not a part of "family lore" for hundreds of thousands of people in Texas. Come on! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Emily (2005). 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:

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) 01:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

Been open for two weeks with minimal to no progress towards fulfilling the GA requirements/resolving the issues mentioned below. As significant work remains, Emily is henceforth demoted from GA status. NoahTalk 23:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: ✗ Fail

This article clearly fails GA. The coverage this article has is less than impressive. There are other problems as well. If you act like a duck and quack like a duck, you are a duck. ~ Destroyeraa🌀🇺🇸 01:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do all of this, though I will try to help around with this. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 04:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Lead is too short. Should be two paragraphs.

Met

  • Overall damage was fairly minor to moderate as the island were still repairing from a much more destructive and powerful storm such as Ivan, 10 months ago. Does not belong here.
  • The storm weakened slightly as it continued westward, and remained a Category 4 while passing south of Jamaica and, on July 17, the Cayman Islands. Emily continued on its nearly straight track to the west-northwest, weakening somewhat but remaining at Category 4 until striking Cozumel just before mainland landfall at Playa del Carmen at 06:30 UTC on July 18. Sustained winds were 135 mph (215 km/h), and the eyewall passed directly over Cozumel. Unsourced.
    •  Partly done
  • MH uses the TCR too much. There is an advisory archive fyi.

I am completely rewriting the MH in my sandbox, using more sources and making it larger. Stay safe, Cyclone Toby 12:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations

  • No US preps

Impact

  • For a Category 4 hurricane, impact seems limited in Mexico.
  • Haiti impacts? It caused 5 deaths there.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some sources

Meteo journals/papers
Other Journals
Grenada
Mexico

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No evidence that this article is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks (contribs) 19:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Emily (2005) → Hurricane Emily – The name was Good without a (2005) 119.94.56.230 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Passed. EF5 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Emily (2005)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this! EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    No reference or OR issues, so good job there.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    No issues here, although see below about the "fatalities" section".
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I spotted no weasel words, so nothing to really fix here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Besides the recent major expansion, there have been no disruptive edit wars in the past few weeks.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I'm afraid the second image (File:Emily_2005_path.png) is sandwiching text between it and
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    See my below comments.

Comments

  • The lead states that Hurricane Emily was one of only two July Atlantic hurricanes to reach Category 5 status on the Saffir-Simpson scale. If Hurricane Emily was one, what was the other? Per WP:LEAD, it should give general information without making readers have to dig deeper. EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Emily mainly made landfall over Caribbean countries, shouldn't the date layout be D/M/Y instead of M/D/Y? I'm not sure which way it's usually formatted for hurricanes. EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh, yea you're right, just finished!
  • The sentences Some flights were canceled or delayed as early as July 12. Residents were alerted to the possibility of floods and mudslides should be shortened to one larger sentence, such as "Some flights were canceled or delayed as early as July 12 and residents were alerted to the possibility of floods and mudslides." EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could a section on the fatalities be made? Although not required, it would help readers skip straight there instead of having to comb through the entire article. EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a sentence starting out the impact section, which reflects the information in the infobox. The fatalities are woven into the narrative, so I don't think an entire section is needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed to have fixed it. EF5 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the article so far, it's in pretty good shape! EF5 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @EF5:, lemme know if I missed anything! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. EF5 18:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@EF5: - overall this is a nice review of a high-quality article. Could you confirm that you spot-checked some of the references to make sure they verify? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EF5, as per Ganesha811's above comment, can you please confirm whether you did a spot check? I see you are claiming this for WikiCup points as well, and a spotcheck is required per both the GAN rules and the WikiCup rules. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I must not have gotten the first ping. Sure, should I pick out random ones and list them, or…? EF5 13:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would work. Epicgenius (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here's some random sources:
  • [17] (WU) - October 17-19, 1997: Super Typhoons Ivan and Joan in the Northwest Pacific in the source backs up the "marking the first time since Typhoons Ivan and Joan in 1997 when two tropical cyclones of Category 5 strength existed simultaneously in the Northern Hemisphere." that it is cited to.
  • [25] (Naples Daily News) - many Islanders still have no roofs and left few buildings viable as shelters in the source backs up the "This left fewer buildings as reliable shelters and many homes without roofs by the arrival of Emily." that it is cited to.
  • [42] (ReliefWeb) - The Office of Disaster Preparedness and Emergency Management (ODPEM) is reporting that there are approximately 3,269 persons in 79 shelters across the island. in the source backs up the "Upon the onset of the storm, a total of 3,269 people were utilizing public shelters." that it is cited to.
  • [89] (CMO) - however, only near-gale strength was recorded at one station in that area. in the source backs up the "Despite its intensity, Emily only produced gale-force winds at one location in southwestern Jamaica." that it is cited to, although in the following sentence in the source it goes mention gale-force winds in a bay.
  • [101]/[102] (NOAA) - County/Area - JIM WELLS, County/Area - LIVE OAK in the sources back up the "A tornado touched down in open fields of Jim Wells County, which crossed into Duval County, remaining on the ground for about 6.4 km (4 mi). The twister damaged a few houses." and "Another tornado touched down in rural parts of Jim Wells County, which crossed into Live Oak County." in the article.
  • [4] (NWS) - I did find one innacuracy that I forgot to mention here, source 4 only states that "A total of eight tornadoes were reported in southeastern Texas, causing minor damage but no casualties.", which contradicts "Emily's rainbands spawned at least nine tornadoes across southern Texas" in the article. Pinging @Hurricanehink: for the fix, and @Ganesha811: and @Epicgenius:. I hope this suffices, feel free to let me know if I need more examples to give. :) EF5 19:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It definitely suffices for the GA backlog drive, thanks! In the future, you can list them out in full, as you did here, or just say "Checked sources #s X, Y, Z, and Z1, all verified" or similar. Spot checking is pretty flexible. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems good to me as well. I agree with what Ganesha says regarding spotchecks, you can just mention the source numbers you checked, or list in detail each of the sources that you checked. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the tornado count, I realize the NHC said eight tornadoes, but NCDC clearly identifies nine tornadoes. There's the F1 that was in Jim Wells/Duval county, an F0 that went from Jim Wells to Duval County, an F0 that went from Jim Wells to Live Oak County, and ones in Cameron, Hidalgo, Jim Hogg, San Patricio, Webb, and Zapata. That's nine. I'm guessing the one in Cameron, which was media-reported, might not have been included in the TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]