Featured articleHurricane Leslie (2018) 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 June 11, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2021Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 17, 2018.
Current status: Featured article

Damage cost[edit]

I don't know if it should be mentionned because damage in France are indirect but they have been estimated at roughly 200 millions of euros : http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2018/10/21/97002-20181021FILWWW00056-inondations-dans-l-aude-des-degats-de-l-ordre-de-200-millions-d-euros-le-maire.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:87E3:1100:8D7B:D2D0:60F3:25B3 (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Leslie as an extratropical cyclone[edit]

I added the original image to this article which depicts Leslie at its peak intensity as an extratropical cyclone during that time frame.

@B dash: added this image which is Leslie shortly after becoming an extratropical cyclone.

@LightandDark2000: My question is, which do you guys prefer. I personally like the Original better as it shows the peak as an ET. FigfiresSend me a message! 04:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda?[edit]

From what I can see of Leslie's track, it did not impact bermuda. I may be wrong about this though, I'm going to check the NHC's archive. Also I removed the US East Coast as being affected, because Leslie never came close to the East Coast. Remember....articles have to remain factual. GokuSS400 (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: After reviewing Weather.com's track of Leslie, I'm going to remove Bermuda as being affected as it was too far away, and no watches/warnings were ever issued for Bermuda either GokuSS400 (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It never affected the US or Bermuda directly, although it did bring high surf to the areas, it might be helpful to clarify, however I would remove your edits BananaIAm (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How long?[edit]

On the longest duration list for Atlantic tropical cyclones it shows Leslie as number 4. I’m just here to ask if this is true or not. Leslie supposedly lasted longer than Nadine of 2012. Does anyone have a scource for this claim? Swivel Here (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do before GAN[edit]

I know this is late and probably doesn't matter, but the TCR isn't out yet so it can't be added quite yet. --YellowSkarmory (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something wrong with Leslie's TCR[edit]

Seriously, what in the heck is wrong with the link for Leslie's Tropical Cyclone Report? The link ends up leading to a page with a message stating that "access is forbidden" (and this is the first time that I've come across something like this for any TCR page). Does anyone know what's going on here? Maybe someone should message one of the analysts at the NHC to notify them of this issue. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 09:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split the MH?[edit]

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.


The MH of Hurricane Leslie is arguably one of the most interesting Met histories in the history of tropical cyclones. There is already a lot of info about the MH already in the article, and there could be more info added (the article isn't GA or FA). Additional info will make the article seem very long, and readers who are interested in only the MH can ready a different article dedicated to the MH. Readers who are only interested in the impacts and are semi-interested in the MH can read a sligtly shorter MH and the impacts. Comments? ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:40, 12 October 2020 (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[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Leslie (2018)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


This article is very-well written. I found a handful of issues (mostly minor ones), but other than that, the article is a solid candidate for a GAN. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Linked to subtropical cyclone. NoahTalk 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked the appropriate section. NoahTalk 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need a note. I can just say they are 1-minute winds. NoahTalk 18:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meteorological history
  • Done and fixed date format. NoahTalk 19:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I see the explanation immediately afterward. LOL. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations
Impacts
  • Done. 19:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Aftermath
Source review
  • Yeah. Apparently, so. The original link wasn't working when I was reviewing the article, though. Which is just weird. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you meant 112 since 120 is in Portuguese. NoahTalk 19:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are all of the issues that I have found. The article also seems to be close to A-Class status, so after it gets promoted to GA, it shouldn't take much work to get it to A-Class and then FA status. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check

Final

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):
  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:
    I am going to  Pass this article. Great job! Congratulations on getting this monster of an article to GA. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction required[edit]

I've made a few spelling corrections throughout the article. Please could someone check the section "Initial peak intensity and weakening" - in the second paragraph, there's a line that reads "Convection rtiringed over the storm's center later that day" - however I can't figure out what "rtiringed" is actually meant to say. (Also, forgive me for being dumb, but why hasn't this been protected due to it being the featured article? Vandalism is a thing.) Jack talk 09:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jmtlr, I've just put in a request for semi-protection at WP:RFPP. The "rtiringed" was leftover vandalism and was originally "refired". ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional issues[edit]

The article says: "Multiple waterspouts occurred in the Gallic portion of France."

First, waterspouts occur in the ocean, so wouldn't it be better to say "near" France?
Second, what is the "Gallic portion of France"? Isn't all of France Gallic?

It also says "Collectively, €17 million (US$20 million) was paid in advance to claimants."

In advance of what? I'm sure no insurance company paid damage claims before the damage occurred.

--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 11:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]