Jump to content

Talk:1903 Florida hurricane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1903 Florida hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star1903 Florida hurricane is part of the 1903 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 16, 2016Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2016Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1903 Florida hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Why the {{clear}} below the lead?
  • "also known as the 1903 Inchulva hurricane" - ref for it being called this name?
  • You say "extensive" a lot in the lead, but I'm not sure that's appropriate. "Extensive" means "of great extent; wide; broad". So that makes sense when referring to the SE US, but not to two counties in Florida, or an island group
  • "but re-intensified into a hurricane over the Gulf of Mexico on September 17. Peaking at 90 mph (150 km/h), equivalent to a strong Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale, the storm made landfall near Panama City several hours later." - the bolded part doesn't work
  • First sentence of MH should be split up
  • On what basis was the peak intensity? Ship report? Land report? Something else?
  • "and began to re-intensify over the gulf" - when referring to the Gulf of Mexico as a shorthand, it should be "Gulf", or otherwise just say "body of water"
  • "As its heading backed to the north-northeast" - track suggest NNW
  • "Between 06:00 and 12:00 UTC on September 10, the United States Weather Bureau issued storm signals, equivalent to a tropical storm warning in 2012" - you can probably remove the year. The 2012 bit is confusing in 2016. Alternatively, use {{Currentyear}}
  • "but monetary losses and loss of life, if any, in the Bahamas are unknown" - not needed
  • " The lowest pressure at Jupiter dipped to 1003 mbar (29.63 inHg)[1] at 23:00 UTC on September 11." - is this notable/important? I feel it's the kind of thing people will just gloss over
  • "In the Black section of the town, just one church stood after the hurricane." - this feels slightly uncomfortable to me... is African American OK? Also, were there multiple churches? If there was one, then this sentence is incredibly misleading. If you can't find that out, I'd cut it.
  • I should have looked into this earlier. Based on what I'm seeing, it appears that it wasn't as if the only thing left standing was a church. There were several building destroyed, though. There were four churches. Yes, African American is ok, except in the White House, according to some people :P--12george1 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the new building for the The Miami Metropolis," - is this correct?
  • "The loss of electricity was restored by September 12" - didn't the storm make landfall on the 12th?

All in all a decent article, just some unusual stuff that, IMO, looks like it's trying to fluff up the article a bit. With these fixes, I believe the article will be a fine good article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]