Talk:1959 Atlantic hurricane season

A lot of the information about Dennis talks about it taking the record from Cindy for earliest 4th named storm. And always, it says Hurricane 3 was unnamed in 1959... but nothing I've seen has said why Hurricane 3 was unnamed. Any ideas how to find that info and put it in this article?

Most likely, the storm wasn't upgraded until after the season was over. Operationally, the National Hurricane Center can't possible receive all of the data from various weather stations and ships, so they take time to process the data after the season is over. This is (most likely) why Hurricane 3 wasn't named. It was possibly a tropical depression, or it was treated as a nontropical low, but after the season, it was upgraded. Hurricanehink 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

"Gracie would later be retired, though it is unclear if the name was retired or not." - this makes no sense to me. It's self contradictory (and unsourced). Sven Manguard Wha? 18:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll probably be working in late-February or March, though I'll address it soon. HurricaneFan25 — 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

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 1959 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 "MWR":

• From 1964 Atlantic hurricane season: Dunn, Gordon E. and Staff (1965). "The Hurricane Season of 1964" (PDF). U.S. Weather Bureau. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2008. Retrieved 2008-02-20. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes: Day, W P. "Tropical Cyclones During 1925" (PDF). Monthly Weather Review (December 1925). United States Weather Bureau: 540–555. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1925)53<540a:TCD>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved January 13, 2013.
• From 1958 Atlantic hurricane season: 1958 Monthly Weather Review
• From 1961 Atlantic hurricane season: Dunn (March 1962). "The Hurricane Season of 1961" (PDF). NOAA. Retrieved March 22, 2010.
• From 2005 Atlantic hurricane season: Beven, John L. (2008). "Atlantic Hurricane Season of 2005". Monthly Weather Review. 136 (3): 1109–1173. Bibcode:2008MWRv..136.1109B. doi:10.1175/2007MWR2074.1. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• From Tropical Storm Arlene (1959): Gordon E. Dunn and Staff (1959). "Monthly Weather Review for 1959" (PDF). Weather Bureau Office. Retrieved October 13, 2008.
• From 1957 Atlantic hurricane season: Moore, Paul L. (December 1, 1957). "The Hurricane Season of 1957" (PDF). Monthly Weather Review. 85 (12). American Meteorological Society: 401–408. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1957)085<0401:THSO>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved February 28, 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

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⚡ 04:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:1959 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 23:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I will be taking on this review. Please give me some time, as I might have to leave before I'm done with the initial review. You will not see any further edits until I have completed the full review, which should be done sometime within the next five hours. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

1. Well written:

a. prose/copyright:   Needs work

- Please check to make sure that the copyediting that I preformed on the lead section did not render anything incorrect. I don't think any of the rest of my CEs changed anything substantive.

It was good, except you made the structure kinda choppy and asymmetrical.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- Please contextualize the ACE rating. I know from clicking on accumulated cyclone energy that 77 is a 'normal' season, however that information should be in the article (and cited, of course).

Added--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- For Hurricane Three I believe that a relief effort featuring the Pope and the Queen is of sufficient importance that it warrants a sentence in this article.

Added--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- In the Tropical Storm Edith section, something is missing in the second sentence, "Less than three hours later, while located east of the Windward Islands.".

It was missing that a tropical depression developed less than three hours later.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- Same section: For "There was "considerable doubt" if a circulation ever existed." is there still doubt? If so, the sentence needs to be changed to reflect this. If not, the sentence needs to be changed to include the general consensus.

Not sure about this. I mean that was way back in 1959. HURDAT hasn't got to 1959 yet, so I guess the consensus for now is that a circulation did exist.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- The section on Hurricane Flora is choppily written. I think you'd be able to fix this by restructuring the sentences that include the word "thus".

Eh, I don't think that can be done. Plus, there is also two sentences with the word "thus".--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- For Hurricane Gracie, do hurricanes "deepen"? (Sentence prompting this is "It deepened further to a Category 2, on September 23, before weakening later that day.".)

"Deepening" is a term that means to strengthen, like rapid deepening--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

- For Tropical Storm Irene, there's a large area of precipitation (spanning several states), but only Florida and Georgia are covered in the write up. Did the storm go through other states or is the map covering unrelated precipitation as well?

There just wasn't impact reported in other states (save for rainfall). Notice Florida and Georgia have the heaviest rainfall, so there was flooding in those two states.--12george1 (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

b. MoS compliance:   Let's go with yes

2. Accurate and verifiable:   Section acceptable

a. provides references:   Acceptable

b. proper citation use:   Acceptable

c. no original research:   Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage:   Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects:   Acceptable

b. focused/on topic:   Acceptable

4. Neutral:   Section acceptable

5. Stable:   Section acceptable

6. Image use:   Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct:   Acceptable

b. relevant/properly captioned:   Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer:

a. images that should have alt texts have them:   N/A

b. general catch all and aesthetics:   Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: I have nothing but the highest respect for your work, but if you're not copyediting your work before you submit it for review, you really need to. There were several instances here where words were missing (1, 2, plus the sentence pointed out above). Now I honestly don't really care about copyediting as I review things, but some people just don't like to do that. You barely leave things for me to point out at all (a good thing), but you've got the potential to get so good at this that GANs will largely become a rubber stamp process if you can nail the copyediting issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Comments after second review: Okay, most of those changes are good, but could you please explain why you removed the 'Records' section? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

• It was not sourced and "trivial". Plus, the citations normally used to verify sections such as that are now considered WP:OR.--12george1 (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay, so I can respect that argument. I think that it's basic enough that it falls under "you don't have to cite that the sky is blue", but it's not basic enough that I'm going to fight over it. I've promoted this. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1959 Atlantic hurricane season. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218105454/http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/ to http://hurricane.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2006/dec2006/

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply