Talk:1903 New Jersey hurricane/GA1

Latest comment: 7 years ago by 12george1 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 00:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Hurricanehink. Glad to see that you have nominated another article for GA. About time! :P As usual, fix/address the issues I have with the article in a timely manner and I will pass it.--12george1 (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The Best Track Committee should be aware of and provide flexibility for the extremely serious problems of intensity estimates in the 
existing HURDAT of 1886 through the early 1900s.  This database was not put together "more than a century" ago, rather it was decided upon back 
in the 1960s by Charlie Neumann and John Hope. 
  • Further, it says that the winds were chosen somewhat arbitrarily (like older EPAC, most wind speeds were 50, 85, or 100 kt). Not sure how much (if any) should be in the article, but given what I read, I almost feel that the Jerry Jarrell bit is extraneous. IDK... more info is certainly good, but Jarrell could've based his estimate off of the original Neumann/Hope report, and I'm not sure where they got their info from :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Include a date somewhere in the last three sentences of the MH, preferably the sentence mentioning the ET
    Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • "The schooner Beatrice was lost near Chincoteague" - "Beatrice" should be italics, not bold.
    Thanks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I won't force you to include them, but there are some damage pics, like this and that
  • In the references, add |via=Newspapers.com and {{open access}} to all sources found on Newspapers.com

Thanks so much for the review. Glad I finally got around to the article :P Hope it's fine now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Reply