Talk:Hurricane Emily (1993)

Merge
Too little info here for not notable enough of a storm, IMO. It caused very little damage and deaths, did not make landfall. I think it should be merged. Hurricanehink 20:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to agree. This one smells like a hated skin-and-bones article with little nutritional value :). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sort of swaying the other way. I has potential, but unless somebody adds some stuff, I think it should be merged back. Hurricanehink 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm against merging this one...though it needs a good copyedit, the info is sound, and I think it's an important member of List of North Carolina hurricanes. Now Hurricane Gaston (2004), on the other hand... Jdorje 20:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yea, it does have potential. Hurricanehink 20:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the Gaston article. It is extensive enough to stay. Judge the article, not the storm. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Judge the article, not the storm? You sound like me there.  Isn't your normal argument exactly the opposite? Jdorje 01:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo
Yep, you guessed it...better intro, more impact! This article is almost there though. Jdorje 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Are we there yet? :) Hurricanehink 21:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work. I fixed up the intro and added reference tags.  Only problem is one of the references is a broken link. Jdorje 00:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I assume the broken link refers to the drought and fire in Norfolk. The good news is a drought occurred in the southeast U.S. in the summer of 1993, as shown here. The bad news is the source only covers June and July, and doesn't even mention Hurricane Emily. I can't find a reference for the fire in Norfolk. Maybe you can ask Storm05? Hurricanehink 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Emily (1993). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923023541/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1993.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1993.pdf

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) 13:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Emily (1993). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151004101341/http://www.idia.net/Files/ConferenceCommitteeTopicFiles/62/PDFFile/C07-SHS-FEMAReform.pdf to http://www.idia.net/Files/ConferenceCommitteeTopicFiles/62/PDFFile/C07-SHS-FEMAReform.pdf

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) 05:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussing changes to get consensus with other editors on if the wording should stay or not
Hello everyone, I think that "as a result of Emily" at the end of the intro is unneeded verbosity and should be removed. I also think "The storm downed thousands of trees and wrecked 553 homes—168 of which completely destroyed—" reads rather awkwardly and needs to be revised. I'm not saying my proposed solution is the be all end all, and maybe there is a better way to rephrase but the current version really needs to go. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:207D:E29F:2835:885A (talk) 22 July 2021