Talk:2000 Sri Lanka cyclone

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Hog Farm in topic WP:URFA/2020
Featured article2000 Sri Lanka cyclone is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 25, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 9, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the 2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone, which left over 500,000 homeless, was the first tropical cyclone of hurricane intensity to hit Sri Lanka since 1978?
Current status: Featured article

Importance

edit

I know some of you might disagree with the mid-importance rating, but if left 500,000 homeless and was among the most destructive cyclones in Sri Lanka history. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Class

edit

B-class, already up for GA. Might even be an A-class article once GA is passed. —Cuiviénen 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good article pass

edit

Congratulations! I have decided that this article is of an all round good standard and so have passed the article for Good Article status. The hard work that has gone into the article is really obvious to see and to all of you who have worked on this, well done! Wikiwoohoo 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cyclone 04B and comments

edit

Should there be a redirect for Cyclone 04B to this title? I left some queries in HTML comments where I couldn't understand the text.Andplus 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not really, as Cyclone 04B is a designation given to cyclones in many years: 2001, 2002 and 2005 all had a 04B. Furthermore Cyclone 04B in 1999 killed over 80 people, significantly more than this storm. I suppose there could be limited utility in making a redirect from Cyclone 04B (1999).--Nilfanion (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Intensity

edit

"3-minute sustained: 165 km/h (105 mph) 1-minute sustained: 120 km/h (75 mph)" How can a 3-minute sustained be higher than a 1-minute sustained? Pål Jensen (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone. 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) 01:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone. 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) 04:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

WP:URFA/2020

edit

Looking at this one as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. Some notes below:

  • Per WP:RSP, there is no consensus that the Worldwide Socialist Web Site is a particularly reliable source for factual reporting. As WP:FACR requires the higher standard of high-quality RS, this is not a useable source in a FA
  • A scan of Google scholar, ProQuest, EBSCO, and Gale suggests that there isn't any significant scholarly literature that I could find not represented here, so it looks good on that front

While that one poor source is the only major issue, it is used a fair bit, and this cannot be marked as satisfactory until it is replaced. This one is on the CCI, but I spot-checked a couple of the references and didn't turn up any issues. Hog Farm Talk 06:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply