I am nominating this for featured article because I spent a lot of time writing and researching this destructive hurricane earlier this year. I always intended to nominate it, but I never got around to it until now. I hope you all find the storm as fascinating as I did. It's my first FAC in a while, but as I've said since my first FAC here goes nothing! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, 1a. The writing needs work. I started fixing stuff in the lead, but after finding more (still in the lead), I stopped reading. Random examples:
"just five days after Hurricane Connie struck the same general area" I don't think the word "general" is doing anything.
Disagreed. Saying "the same area" implies the exact same location, which it wasn't. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"The storm produced the state's largest flood on record, which effectively split the state into two after destroying bridges and cutting communications." I think you mean by, not after, unless the flood destroyed bridges, cut communications, and then did something else to split the state.
I think they both work work. I'm not quite sure what your comment means ("and then did something else to split the state"), but yes, the floods were responsible for destroying the bridges and cutting communications. I'll change it to "by", but I don't think it matters much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"30 stream gauges reported their highest level" (levels)
I think this would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. --Laser brain(talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, I requested a copyeditor, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I tackled the lead a bit, although there were some parts I had a hard time rewording. For example: "The storm turned to the northeast, and fueled by warm waters in the Atlantic Ocean, it dropped record rainfall across the northeastern United States." I don't feel like this sentence flows properly (the "... , and fueled ..., it ..." is a little awkward), though I'm not sure how to rephrase without changing the meaning too much. Please see if my edits were an improvement. Auree★★ 17:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, much improved. I merged those clauses, about the rainfall, so hopefully it works better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the process of fine-tuning the prose from top-to-bottom, and I should be done by tonight or tomorrow morning. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I looked it over briefly and it looks improved—I'm striking my opposition. If I can find time to look more thoroughly, I will come back and see if I can support. --Laser brain(talk) 14:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - This article is very well written, and it deserves to be an FA class. One comment from the New England impact section: "In Rhode Island, damage was estimated at $21 million, mostly in Woonsocket, and there were three death." - change "death" to "deaths". Otherwise, I see no obvious mistakes. HurricaneAndrew (444) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - The article looks good, but I think the sections might be a bit big. Otherwise, it's good.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Support - I've done some spot-copyediting (is that even a thing?) where I thought the writing could be made clearer, and I could probably spend hours more rejiggering the wording of the article. At the end of the day, though, the writing is professional and clinical, and more importantly the content is rich and well-sourced. I feel comfortable agreeing that this is the best single account of Hurricane Diane available on the internet. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Image check - all OK (PD NOAA, PD USGS - tweaked tag, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
SupportComment - I have two minor qualms that should be fixed/addressed before I switch to support.--12george1 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"Throughout Pennsylvania, the disaster killed 101 people and caused an estimated $70 million in damage.[nb 2]" - I notice here that you have a link to the note stating that damage figures are in 1955 USD. However, for some reason you mention 1955 USD in this sentence: "Monetary losses totaled $754.7 million (1955 USD), although the inclusion of loss of business". Move "(1955 USD)" to the sentence with the note attached or remove it altogether.
"$754,706,000 in damage (1955 USD), of which $600 million was in New England, making it the costliest hurricane in American history. ... This contributed to 1955 being the costliest Atlantic hurricane season on record." - These two sentences make it seem like Diane is still the costliest hurricane in American history and 1955 AHS still the most expensive.
This is an excellent article that I enjoyed reading. My only quibble on the overall is the often use of passive voice. Perhaps a few of those sentences can be reworded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I cut down on the use of passive voice. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence reads awkward. I suggest: "Hurricane Diane was a costly 1955 Atlantic Hurricane that struck the eastern coast of the United States. One of three hurricanes to hit North Carolina, during the season, it formed..."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I want to emphasize that at one time, it was the costliest hurricane, which is a pretty notable stat on the hurricane, one worthy of starting off the article. Just saying "a costly" doesn't emphasize that enough, IMO. Is there a way to fix the awkwardness without removing that piece of information from the first sentence? IMO, the first sentence should be the most important fact, and I think this qualifies. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The "costliest at its time" bit can be moved before the last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced comma at the end of the first sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
It's already listed as USGS. Thanks for the review, hope that's better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Delegate comment -- First sentence, "Hurricane Diane was the costliest Atlantic hurricane at the time." -- can you explain exactly what "at the time" means (the 1955 season, up until 1955, or what?) because it doesn't read well to me and if I know just what you mean I daresay we could come up with something better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
So, Hurricane Katrina is currently the costliest hurricane, before that was Hurricane Andrew. For a period from 1955 to 1965, Diane was the costliest hurricane, until it was surpassed by Hurricane Betsy. It's a very small group of storms that have ever been the costliest at one point, and that Diane held it for 13 years is pretty impressive (its successor, the billion dollar Betsy, only held it for 4 years). I can cite that Diane held the record until Betsy, per here. Would that make matters clearer? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, assuming the above is cited somewhere in the article, I think you could simply alter the first sentence to "Hurricane Diane was the costliest Atlantic hurricane of its time". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)