The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hurricane Able(track pictured) was the only hurricane to make
landfall in the United States during the
1952 hurricane season?
Current status: Good article
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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.
StormO5, why do you keep creating new stub articles? Why can't you add on to existing articles, and discuss the creation of new articles on the wikiproject page?
Jdorje17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Hello, I will be reviewing your article over the next several days! I will make non-controversial copyedits and minor fixes along the way, and should soon be back to make my report. Good luck! (This is my first review, but since I have added my second GA nominee, I felt it was only fair to start reviewing too! ;])
Reaper Eternal (
talk)
02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The GA review completed on 03:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC).
"By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined
eye, and the next day estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)* as they reported concentric eyewalls." - I'm sorry, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say since the second clause has no predicate.
Now that you explain it, it makes sense. (I had thought that "estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)*" was a gerund phrase with associated modifiers.) However, it still reads slightly confusingly. Could we try something like:
By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined
eye, and the next day they estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)* as they reported concentric eyewalls.
Or,
By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined
eye and, the following day, estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)*while they reported concentric eyewalls.
Either of these (besides breaking the sentence into two sentences) reads better in my opinion.
By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined
eye and estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)*while reporting concentric eyewalls the next day.
Really though, it's up to you to decide whether you want to since it is a matter of personal preference.
Out of curiosity, how do the meteorologists know when Able formed and when it became a tropical storm if they first observed it on August 25, as stated in the lead.
It wasn't first observed in general, just that was when it was first observed by the Hurricane Hunters. Although not present in the available sources, I assume they extrapolated its track back to the coast based on observations in the Cape Verde islands. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
(NOTE: This isn't an issue; I was just wondering!)
The statement that "It was first observed by the
Hurricane Hunters on August 25 to the north of the Lesser Antilles" in the lead is not supported in the text. In fact, the text gives the impression that it was discovered August 18. (
This source supports it, however, so why not add a citation to it in the lead or state it a little more clearly in the body text.)
"The next day [August 25], the Miami Weather Bureau Office initiated advisories on Tropical Storm Able after the Hurricane Hunters confirmed the presence of a poorly defined center." The article prose just gives greater clarification to what is summarized in the lede. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)reply
OK, that isn't much of an issue.
"A smaller than normal hurricane..." - The size of Able is not given in citation.
Okay, now that those issues are out of the way for the most part, I have found some more sources you may be interested in. (It's fine if you don't use them.)
I have just modified one external link on
Hurricane Able (1952). 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:
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.