Talk:1896 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I like the details on the origins of H1, but "In any event, around midday on July 7, the hurricane made landfall on the Florida Panhandle east of Pensacola at Category 2 intensity" - this is the first time a hurricane is mentioned. Perhaps indicate when there is first a hurricane in the best track? (July 5)
"Upon moving ashore, the hurricane produced powerful wind gusts as high as 100 mph (160 km/h)." - why do you say wind gusts? The infobox says peak intensity of 100 mph, which would imply sustained winds, not gusts.
You should write out the dissipation date for H1 instead of "ultimately"
"In the harbor" - since you say "Pensacola and the coast", you should specify "in the city's harbor" IMO. I'd also add "Florida" to "the coast"
How come H2 doesn't mention anything about its origins on August 30?
"The ship suffered extensive damage and lost one crew member [when he was washed] overboard" - add some words before "overboard"
I'd add what the estimated winds were at Massachusetts landfall, and that hurricane-force winds affected MA and RI
What happened on 9/11? Did it dissipate as an extratropical cyclone, or was it no longer tracked?

I don't think any of the sources specify... I could add "its track in HURDAT" – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A handful of homes were destroyed along the coast of Juana Díaz" - you could just say "five" instead of the vaguer "handful"
There was a Guadeloupe landfall for H2 that's missing

Ooh, I forgot about that resource. There might be a couple useful tidbits in there, but since the best track is well south of Guadeloupe, I'm not really sure that part should be included. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Rough seas at Amesbury, Massachusetts, damaged the foundations of summer cottages." - I think this falls under "Later, the storm generated damaging winds along the Northeastern United States coast from New Jersey to eastern New England, wreaking havoc on beachfront property and small craft." So it's not needed.
"Seven of the ship's crew members made it safely to shore, but inexplicably, three others—including the captain—committed suicide upon running aground"." o.O

I don't know why they panicked, honestly. Foreigners have always been made to feel welcomed in America! :/ – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

H3's MH seems incomplete. Ditto H6 (which doesn't even mention the cyclonic loop)

So, that was sort of intentional for both systems. The tracks are holdovers from very early reanalysis projects (1924), where more recent research wasn't able to verify the intensities/locations of either storm. The only thing apparently supporting the existence of Hurricane 6 was one dubious ship report, but as I understand it, lack of evidence isn't considered a valid reason to remove or truncate a previously accepted storm. With that said, I don't really feel comfortably chronicling intensity or direction changes that aren't documented anywhere except in HURDAT, with its idiosyncratic methods, and that actual secondary sources have not been able to substantiate. I could add a little more well-hedged text, but I don't want to get too meta/technical. Any suggestions? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I tried fleshing out the narrative a bit for these storms based on your suggestion. How does that look? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The storm ~~totally~~ demolished a 5,390 ft (1,640 m) bridge"
"Three sailors died when a schooner went aground along the coast of Delaware,[43] and another was tossed overboard while battling rough seas offshore.[42" - since it seems like you're going geographically northeastward, it seems like this sentence should be before the Jersey Shore impacts.
"The storm remained below hurricane intensity and was last noted on November 29" - where?

All in all, a good read about an old season, and with a little more work, I'll be happy to pass it as a good article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the in-depth review, it's much appreciated! It's rather refreshing to have the actual content and structure critiqued instead of just menial wording stuff. :) I took care of most of your suggestions, and left a few responses where I wasn't quite sure how to proceed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]