Talk:1851 Atlantic hurricane season

Assessment comments

All comments relevent to the GA process are supposed to be on the new GA page, which is linked through the GA tag itself. I moved them there. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

this is no way near GA quality.... theres several things that could make it better though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc canes=me (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? Thank you. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Soz for the offensive bit...

but for ts 5 you could put the little graphy-thingy like the others saying it had 60mph winds.... http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at18515.asp its a bit out... but you can edit it.

Itfc canes=me (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the small infoboxes? The reason it's there for some and not for others is because, due to how long ago the season was, some storms lack exact information that would be needed for the infobox. It doesn't affect the article's quality in the least. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

oh and I belive Hurricane 4 was this: http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/at18514.asp

the great middle florida hurricane....

shall i edit that in for you? Itfc canes=me (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that name is already mentioned in the article. Also, please remember to sign your posts using ~~~~. Thank you, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Too late LOL.... I'll de-edit it Itfc canes=me (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits. First, the 1-min parameter in the template is by knots, not by mph. Second, the formation and dissipation times are only the dates. The exact times are not included. Also, I opted not to include the Infobox for the storms that did not have a path. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a mistake?[1]Potapych (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there are several early storms that have only one known point. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comments

Since I know you want to send it to the chopping block, I reviewed the article fairly quickly:

• What is an "unofficial hurricane" (as per the lede)
• Five of the six tropical cyclones affected land, including three making landfall as a hurricane
• When it hit near Panama City, Florida as the equivalence of a Category 3 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale, - I'm not sure "equivalence" is used correctly here, and the same is true throughout the article.
• A mention of how the season may include more storms would be ideal, a la 1933 AHS.
• Add a season summary section (and take out lots of stuff from the lede)
• It tracked westward, moving ashore near Matagorda Bay later that night near peak intensity, with an estimated pressure of 977 mbar;
• A moderate hurricane makes landfall near Tampico,
• A tropical storm passes through the southern Lesser Antilles...
• "official hurricane database." - we really need an article on HURDAT

Overall, good, but I'm not convinced it's ready for GA yet. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I clarified the "unofficial hurricane" bit. I'm not sure what was wrong with three hurricanes making landfall, so I clarified it by changing "hurricane" to just winds of hurricane force. Potentially missed storms, season summary, pressure, and tense has been resolved. I think equivalence is an appropriate word. We use it in other basins for 64kt storms, and given this season was pre-SSHS, I think its usage is warranted. BTW, would Atlantic hurricane reanalysis count for the needed link for HURDAT? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought it should have been "three making landfall as hurricanes" - it just struck me as a subject/verb agreement plural problem. As for "equivalence", I think "equivalent" would be better, because it sounds wrong somehow, but it's not something huge. Maybe the reanalysis link would work, until the HURDAT article is created. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would just add more references to the new season summary (or repeat the existing references, whichever the case it may be) and then ship off to WP:DYK. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:1851 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. This article violates tropical cyclone project standards, which were created just for such an occasion (unnamed storms). From the wikiproject web page... Unnamed (including numbered) hurricanes (used for older tropical cyclones in the Atlantic and Pacific basins, and for all tropical cyclones in the Indian Ocean basin) should be distinguished by location, type, and year. Three naming conventions are acceptable: Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, or Unnamed Hurricane (1975). All unnamed hurricanes should always have a year in the name. Again, create redirects wherever necessary to avoid confusion or duplicate articles. For the individual storms, this would entail a naming such as Late June Texas hurricane, for example. Years would be repetitive for the names since they lie within the annual article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am really confused. Unless I missed something, we keep using "Hurricane One", "Tropical Storm Two", etc. since this is within the HURDAT. See 1933 Atlantic hurricane season, in that we use this format. The WPTC standards for naming only apply to the names of storm articles. IIRC, there's never been a discussion to change how we name the storm section titles. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the discussion that led to text being included on the wikiproject page regarding the name of storm articles for unnamed tropical cyclones. I had a similar issue with Unnamed Hurricane (1975) from the central Pacific. Originally, it was named Hurricane 12 with the Pacific article, I believe. If we're naming systems this way for storm articles, you'd think we'd be following the same format for the headers given in annual articles as well. The problem with using these numerical assignments is that these storms were never called "Hurricane One" or "Hurricane 12" in real-time, and still aren't or the name in HURDAT would be "TWELVE" and not "UNNAMED". It is safer, and will require fewer changes in the future, to call systems "Late June Texas hurricane" to avoid this problem. If you no longer think this applies pre-1950, we need to have a discussion within the project specifically about this issue, because (as you've noted) we have a difference between the conventions used in the annual articles and what is stated on the wikiproject page which should be resolved. We also have a problem with tropical depression numbering in more recent years which is not going to go away. I've been using the number assigned operationally (in the 1981 Atlantic hurricane season article), while other years are just numbering everything sequentially, regardless of what they were called operationally. This is a related debate...I'll copy this over to the tropical cyclone wikiproject page since it's at least as relevant on that page than this one. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Since this matter has yet to be resolved, it is unfair to have it hold-up GA. I will be neutral until the project comes to some sort of agreement on this matter. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems as if there is enough information on the Middle Florida hurricane (TC #4) for it to have its own article. If it did, the summation within this season article could be significantly shortened. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I just experimented, and there isn't really enough info to separate TC #4 from this season article. Both articles would become quite short, and I feel such a split is not needed, nor will ever be needed, due to lack of info. Is there anything else the article needs while on GA review? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, 10 ft converted to 10 m during "Hurricane Four." Otherwise, I think the wording about certain storms not being in the official database is irrelevant to the article and should be removed. The inline references, from the sources that are not HURDAT, will make that clear enough in my opinion. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the conversion. I feel that the other storms warrant inclusion, as either could have been missed by HURDAT. The latter was included in a NOAA publication which came out more recent than HURDAT did for the time period. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. I just don't think the addition of the text "it's not in the official database" warrants inclusion within the season article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Well, about that, I think it should be specified that the storms are not in the official database, so it should be included. That aside, is there anything preventing this from passing its good article nomination? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent work, as always. Passes GA. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane One

I was searching through the NHC season summary tracks, here's the link [2], and Hurricane One wasn't on the summary. Has it changed since then, or is it out dated? Wonderworld1995268 (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That one is out of date. Here is the correct map. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure. Wonderworld1995268 (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)