Talk:1855 Atlantic hurricane season

1855 Atlantic hurricane season 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.
Review: August 15, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from 1855 Atlantic hurricane season appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 July 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the 1855 Atlantic hurricane season had the lowest Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) total on record until the 1907 season?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1855 Atlantic hurricane season.

Wikipedia

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Orphaned references in 1855 Atlantic hurricane season

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1855 Atlantic hurricane season's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Partagas":

From 1853 Atlantic hurricane season: Jose F. Partagas (1996). Year 1853 (PDF). Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (Report). Miami, Florida: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. pp. 21–26. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
From 1854 Atlantic hurricane season: Jose F. Partagas (1996). Year 1854 (PDF). Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (Report). Miami, Florida: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. pp. 21–26. Retrieved May 2, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1855 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Lead[reply]

"The 1855 Atlantic hurricane season featured no tropical cyclone landfalls on the East Coast of the United States" - This should NOT be the first sentence of the article; focus on where they did land, or the relative paucity of known hurricanes, THEN mention where they did not.

Better?--12george1 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much. Thank you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other

You mention a downgraded hurricane in the lead, but nowhere else. This needs summarised in the article.

Are you asking me to mention that downgraded hurricane as a separate section or something like that?--12george1 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to make sense, and should explain why it was rejected, if at all possible. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has somewhat of a paucity of sources. The secondary sources mention the New York Times; all the New York Times articles are available online for free, and would be worth using to add detail.

Better?--12george1 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, aye. I mean, this is always going to be a short article, but may as well include relevant bits... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously, this is an article where there's a limited amount of information to use. But I'm happy it's a good, complete description of the subject. Pass. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]