Talk:Hurricane Easy (1951)

Todo

Add links for Easy and Cleo to the List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes article, shorten the lede a bit (same reasoning as Cleo, due to lack of overall information), integrate the quotes in the article, clarify the impact (the lede says it damaged some ships' superstructures, but the impact doesn't say anything about that), Wikilink dates, go through the writing again and make it more professional (this day is self-referencing, steamship Barn, who reported is awkward, since a ship is not a person), and get rid of the reference in the Infobox (you could cite a phrase saying that in the storm history). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are the improvements. I removed the reference from the infobox. All dates have been linked, and I added links for Cleo and Easy in the Category 5 list. "This day" has been replaced by "the same day" in each article. I could not find additional information about the superstructure damages; it was based on a quote in the MWR.

"Operationally, it was first detected by the steamship Barn, which reported the presence of a circulation.[2]"

Does that sentence sound better? I think I have resolved all problems. The exception is the quotes, but that seems minor to me. CVW (Talk) 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The superstructure damages should appear in the MWR, that's what I meant. Also, I'd like integration of the quotes. Personally, I don't like the possessive use of hurricane and cyclone (hurricane's intensity, for example), as, IIRC, possessives and contractions should be avoided in formal writing. But, it's your choice. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact in Florida from waves - should be added. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Pass for both of them, but there are some jargon terms. Also, the usage of quotes in the article is a bit awkward, such as "sharp" recurvature, or The island "was advised to take full hurricane precautions" in advance of the storm. The quotes should be re-written so it flows better with the prose. Mentioning the Fujiwhara effect is unnecessary, as the term doesn't appear in the provided source.

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):

   Perhaps get an image of the surface weather analysis of Easy, or maybe add the Cat. 5 hurricanes template at the top-right of the preps/impact section. Or, you could do both, by putting the surface weather analysis in the lede, the track map where it belongs, and the template at the preps/impact section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Just some minor things need fixing, but overall a good article. Good work. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NOAA Reanalysis

This article conflicts itself over whether or not Easy was a Category 5 (157<) hurricane at peak intensity. A reanalysis of the hurricane by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/A_Reanalysis_of_the_1944-1953_Atlantic_Hurricane_Seasons_-_The_First_Decade_of_Aircraft_Reconnaissance.pdf) shows that Easy is now considered a Category 4. Many of the sources cited in this article were created before this reanalysis, and implementation of this new data would require a new source in some cases. This change needs to be reflected in the article. An example of this conflict is the best track citation in the Meteorological History section when it states that the hurricane was category five as it turned, and then weakened. This change will require major reconstruction of the article. FrontsInFront (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that the storm wasn't a Category 5, the info is pretty minimal, and it is out of date, perhaps the article should be merged? There is roughly the same amount of info in the main article, so it's not like anything would be cut. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with merging this. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I guess that would be a viable solution. FrontsInFront (talk) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Its the most logical solution imo as its a fishy.Jason Rees (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Still a bit more work, alternative language versions of this article still list it as a five, both on season page and on its own (Still existing) page. Similar error for Hurricane Able of the same season. (Three in other languages) I guess I'm going to go look at the rest of the 1950s for these errors. FrontsInFront (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)