Talk:Hurricane Barbara (1953)

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Cyclonebiskit in topic GA Review
Good articleHurricane Barbara (1953) 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 starHurricane Barbara (1953) is part of the 1953 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
February 7, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 30, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 27, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Hurricane Barbara of 1953 uprooted trees left standing intact after the more intense Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944?
Current status: Good article

Todo

edit

More everything. Note: the inline references are only needed at the end of a paragraph. There's no need to cite something 3 times in one paragraph if everything from the paragraph is from the one source. Hurricanehink 15:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

With $7m in damages and 1 death I don't see any justification for this article. — jdorje (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Alright, I merged it. Hurricanehink 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Barbara (1953)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

The article is very well written, very impressive Hink (and JC, wherever you may be hiding). However, I do have a few minor quibbles to bring up. Firstly, the MWR document lists steering factors for Barbara yet you don't mention them in the article. Second, the Canadian Hurricane Center appears to disagree that the storm was extratropical when it struck Nova Scotia, maybe clarify this in the met history. Lastly, impact section is lacking the wind reports from Canada, probably best to add them since there's relatively little other data from the region. I'll be glad to pass the article once these concerns are addressed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There isn't much about steering, but I included what there was. I also mentioned the CHC bit, but I didn't mention the winds, since there wasn't any in the sources. It was extratropical at the time, so there wasn't much info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
The winds are in the first piece of info in the CHC reference, though landfall intensities, it gives at least something for the winds in Canada. 102 km/h (63 mph) in Nova Scotia/Newfoundland and 93 km/h (58 mph) in Quebec/Labrador. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I just did some research of my own into the storm and found some additional information to include in the article

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

OK, I added the additional info. The $1.3 million was backed up by that first source, and there wasn't much of anything encyclopediac in that Ottawa Citizen article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you could just update the rainfall (maximum) in Virginia to match with the rainfall graphic, I'll gladly pass the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okerydokery. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Alright, all good. I'm passing the article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply