Talk:1959 Atlantic hurricane season
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Good topic candidate | Promoted |
Hurricane 3
A lot of the information about Dennis talks about it taking the record from Cindy for earliest 4th named storm. And always, it says Hurricane 3 was unnamed in 1959... but nothing I've seen has said why Hurricane 3 was unnamed. Any ideas how to find that info and put it in this article?
Most likely, the storm wasn't upgraded until after the season was over. Operationally, the National Hurricane Center can't possible receive all of the data from various weather stations and ships, so they take time to process the data after the season is over. This is (most likely) why Hurricane 3 wasn't named. It was possibly a tropical depression, or it was treated as a nontropical low, but after the season, it was upgraded. Hurricanehink 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Retirement of Gracie sentance
"Gracie would later be retired, though it is unclear if the name was retired or not." - this makes no sense to me. It's self contradictory (and unsourced).
- I'll probably be working in late-February or March, though I'll address it soon. HurricaneFan25 — 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Orphaned references in 1959 Atlantic hurricane season
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1959 Atlantic hurricane season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "MWR":
- From 1964 Atlantic hurricane season: Dunn, Gordon E. and Staff (1965). "The Hurricane Season of 1964" (PDF). U.S. Weather Bureau. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (help) - From . Retrieved January 13, 2013.
- From 1958 Atlantic hurricane season: 1958 Monthly Weather Review
- From NOAA. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
- From doi:10.1175/2007MWR2074.1.)
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help - From Tropical Storm Arlene (1959): Gordon E. Dunn and Staff (1959). "Monthly Weather Review for 1959" (PDF). Weather Bureau Office. Retrieved October 13, 2008.
- From doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1957)085<0401:THSO>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved February 28, 2013.)
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1959 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer:
GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)
Starting comments: I will be taking on this review. Please give me some time, as I might have to leave before I'm done with the initial review. You will not see any further edits until I have completed the full review, which should be done sometime within the next five hours.
1. Well written:
- a. prose/copyright: Needs work
- - Please check to make sure that the copyediting that I preformed on the lead section did not render anything incorrect. I don't think any of the rest of my CEs changed anything substantive.
- - Please contextualize the ACE rating. I know from clicking on accumulated cyclone energy that 77 is a 'normal' season, however that information should be in the article (and cited, of course).
- - For Hurricane Three I believe that a relief effort featuring the Pope and the Queen is of sufficient importance that it warrants a sentence in this article.
- - In the Tropical Storm Edith section, something is missing in the second sentence, "Less than three hours later, while located east of the Windward Islands.".
- - Same section: For "There was "considerable doubt" if a circulation ever existed." is there still doubt? If so, the sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. If not, the sentence needs to be changed to include the general consensus.
- - The section on Hurricane Flora is choppily written. I think you'd be able to fix this by restructuring the sentences that include the word "thus".
- - For Hurricane Gracie, do hurricanes "deepen"? (Sentence prompting this is "It deepened further to a Category 2, on September 23, before weakening later that day.".)
- "Deepening" is a term that means to strengthen, like ]
- - For Tropical Storm Irene, there's a large area of precipitation (spanning several states), but only Florida and Georgia are covered in the write up. Did the storm go through other states or is the map covering unrelated precipitation as well?
- b. MoS compliance: Let's go with yes
2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable
- a. provides references: Acceptable
- b. proper citation use: Acceptable
- c. no original research: Acceptable
3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable
4. Neutral: Section acceptable
6. Image use: Section acceptable
7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:
Comments after the initial review: I have nothing but the highest respect for your work, but if you're not copyediting your work before you submit it for review, you really need to. There were several instances here where words were missing (1, 2, plus the sentence pointed out above). Now I honestly don't really care about copyediting as I review things, but some people just don't like to do that. You barely leave things for me to point out at all (a good thing), but you've got the potential to get so good at this that GANs will largely become a rubber stamp process if you can nail the copyediting issue.
Comments after second review: Okay, most of those changes are good, but could you please explain why you removed the 'Records' section?
- It was not sourced and "trivial". Plus, the citations normally used to verify sections such as that are now considered ]
- Okay, so I can respect that argument. I think that it's basic enough that it falls under "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue", but it's not basic enough that I'm going to fight over it. I've promoted this. Wha? 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)]
- Okay, so I can respect that argument. I think that it's basic enough that it falls under "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue", but it's not basic enough that I'm going to fight over it. I've promoted this.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1959 Atlantic hurricane season. 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/20061218105454/http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/ to http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/
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.
{{source check
- 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) 02:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)