Talk:1940 South Carolina hurricane

Todo

Need more impact info and storm damage pictures Storm05 16:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the future, you're not allowed to rate your own articles. Hurricanehink 01:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There's not enough info, nor enough information, to justify an article. All of the impact section can be placed in the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 01:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I could find more infomation about the storm but because this storm has an unoffical name its difficult to find good infomation. Storm05 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

...So why don't we just merge it then? The storm is not notable. The entire impact section is small enough to fit nicely in the seasonal article, which would be a better place than having an unimportant article for an unimportant storm. Hurricanehink 16:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

uh, the storm killed 80 people which makes it notable, its just the name that makes it difficult to find any info. Storm05 17:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, 80 deaths is not notable for that time period. If you want notable storms, try here. Those storms deserve articles more than a storm that killed 80 and has little information on it. Hurricanehink 17:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Enh, 80 deaths is pretty close to notable for 1940, especially in the US. However, if this article is going to stay, it's going to need a lot of expanding. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is based on when it was, there is so little information on it. Hurricanehink 02:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

80 deaths notable? The List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes has dozens of storms more deadly that don't have articles. (But 80 deaths in the U.S. in the 20th century is pretty notable, you're right.) Nonetheless the article probably needs more info if it is to stay. Jdorje 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Georgia – South Carolina hurricane of 1940/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good in general. I noticed a few areas that could do with some improvement:
• The lead seems rather brief. As the article is fairly sizable, two paragraphs of info are probably more suitable.
• A few more meteorological details would be good, if possible. For example, the date of the hurricane's deterioration into a tropical storm.

Placing this on-hold for now. Thanks for your efforts on the article so far. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added the detail about its downgrade to a tropical storm, and added 2 1/2 lines into the lead. With the lead one paragraph long, and the article below it 5 paragraphs long, are you sure we need a second paragraph of a lead? I'm worried that instead of summarizing the article below that we'd be copying increasing amounts of content into the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'm going ahead and passing the article, nice work. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1940 South Carolina hurricane. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120324231519/http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=51700375_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=0 to http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=51700375_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=4&currentPage=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1940 South Carolina hurricane. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130217210143/https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1940.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1940.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1940 South Carolina hurricane. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130128084049/http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Landslide_Info/Landslides_example_historical_events.htm to http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/Landslide_Info/Landslides_example_historical_events.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)