Talk:Hurricane Able (1950)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Hurricane Able (1950) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Hurricane Able (1950) is part of the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 25, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
January 28, 2011 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms / Atlantic  (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the storm articles task force (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane articles task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Don't forget convert templates[edit]

With wind gusts, distances, and pressures, it is good to use the convert template. For pressures, it is just hPa or mb to inHg. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Able (1950)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 04:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian Paul 04:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

And here it is:

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:

Very nice. Some comments:

  1. Is there a need to have the Monthly Weather Review for 1950 as an external link when it's already used as a citation?
  2. The references to the Associated Press stories should also note the newspaper/publisher, since they were printed in specific publications (which would allow someone to re-find the references if for some reason they went down)... unless there's some precedent that I'm not aware of, in which case please point it out to me.
  3. Reference #6 is either no longer working or requires a subscription - if it is the former, it should be fixed, if it is the latter, that should be noted with the reference.
  4. Under "Meteorological history", if "remarkably quiet" is a direct quotation, then it requires a direct citation, especially as the material in the first few sentences is cited by two different sources.
  5. Per WP:DATESNO, August 12th and August 22nd etc. should just be printed as August 12 and August 22 etc. without the tails.
  6. Under "Impact and records", first paragraph - "Further north, the Weather Bureau issued northeast storm warnings" - Per WP:OBVIOUS, which weather bureau?
  7. Same section, second paragraph - What happened to the third boat? Was it lost? Rescued? If this information is available (it may not be) it should be included, as it seems like an obvious question here.
  8. Same section, third paragraph - "It was also the first of eight major hurricanes in the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season, which is a record that still stands today." - Per WP:DATED, you should use more precise language here rather than "today".
  9. The infobox says that the damage was in American dollars - are you sure that's not supposed to be in Canadian dollars?

To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


I've addressed points 1, 5 and 8. Regarding point 6 the U.S. Weather Bureau is previously mentioned twice in the article. On Point 9, I believe all hurricane damage in the North Atlantic is reported in USD regardless of the actual strike location (as the National Hurricane Center, which has responsibility for the area, is located in Miami). - The Bushranger (talk) 06:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's all good then, except for #5, as it is still a problem in "Meteorological history" - I have stricken the items that have been dealt with. Canadian Paul 16:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the help Paul. I figured the damage was in Canadian dollars, actually (given the location), so I inflated the Canadian total to 2010 Canadian dollars, converted it to USD, and found out the 1950 USD for the infobox. I took care of the remaining info, sans the "third boat" stuff, which I'm trying to find out now. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I reworded the article a bit about that list boat. I spent the last 15 minutes combing through Google news, and I can't find the ultimate status of that boat. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
and the article should now be compliant with WP:DATESNO, as well. - The Bushranger (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! If there's nothing to be found about the boat, no problem. Anyways, I think it's more than ready for GA status, thus I will be passing it as such. Congratulations and thank you (both) for your hard work! Canadian Paul 02:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Able (1950). 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)