Talk:1895 Atlantic hurricane season

1895 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: May 25, 2024. (Reviewed version).

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 articles
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).

Strongest storm?

How can Storm2 be the strongest at 110 mph, when storm5 reached 120 mph? Jdorje 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because storm5 was weaker than storm2... Unisys shows that, and is up-to-date with re-analysis information. Hurricanehink 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then the article is wrong when it says storm5 got to 120 mph! Is this information coming from the monthly weather review? I think that's where you've gotten most of your information, but we need to merge in data from the best-track too (UNISYS uses the best-track, as does my track-map-generating program; see s:Atlantic hurricane best track). I suppose what we need is a way to interpret the best-track and upload it to wiki-source in a legible format, with links. But then I guess that's what unisys already provides. Jdorje 00:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Well, I didn't do this article, but based on this, I would guess many old seasons have this problem. I can't do this right now, but this should be fixed eventually. Hurricanehink 01:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Base histories on best track. Jdorje 05:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1895 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 17:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this.

"Neither meteorologists José Fernández-Partagás and Henry F. Diaz in 1996 nor the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis project added or removed any storms during their reanalysis of the season. " - this has the word "reanalysis" twice, but that could be jargony for the average reader. Could you rewrite this to give it better context? Even just reordering the sentence would be helpful to indicate why this is important (I get it)

Better?--12george1 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the season summary was just stated in the lead, I think you could cut down on some of the details, so the information isn't mentioned three times, and twice in such a short succession is a little redundant. Make it more of an overview? For instance, the impacts don't have to be mentioned here as well, since they weren't that extreme.

Better?--12george1 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Thereafter, the cyclone likely intensified further in the Gulf of Mexico and peaked with winds of 110 mph (175 km/h) " - given that this is the strongest storm of the season, could you add a bit more into how the winds were estimated? Perhaps include the pressure here?

It looks like both the winds and pressure were estimated based on damage described in Michael J. Ellis's 1988 Hurricane Almanac --12george1 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also for H2, I think the Chenoweth bit could be in the first paragraph, which is already MH

Done--12george1 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to The Seneca News, the "Mexican National and the Monterey and Gulf railways were the heaviest losers.",[6] with several hundred yards of the former completely washout in some places and many destroyed rail bridges. - is the quote needed? Perhaps word it by mentioning "the former" bit first, and then add "the Gulf railways also sustained heavy damage" as a separate bit? IDK, I'm not a fan of quoting unless necessary, and I don't even know if it was according to the Seneca news, as a lot of times these are written by staff writers for AP, AFP, whatnot.

Rephrased to remove the quote --12george1 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Meteorologist Ivan Ray Tannehill began the track for this storm" - any idea when this assessment was? Not vital, but I'm curious now. You could also word it like "which was concurred by subsequent analyses" instead of mentioning Chenoweth and Partagas and Diaz in the same section, all to say the same thing.

Added that, but I do think Chenoweth and Partagas/Diaz should still be mentioned separately because Chenoweth starts the track three days earlier, including a landfall over Nicaragua--12george1 (talk) 04:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A correspondent to The Nassau Guardian described northern Bimini as "a wreck from one end to the other." - now this quote I liked. I guess I didn't want the word "loser" in the article, that term is reserved for other subject matters, like in Manhattan at this very moment, perhaps
In Other storms -

"The first such system began on June 8 as a subtropical storm. " - Where?

Offshore North Carolina--12george1 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can you broadly summarize Chenoweth's analysis? Something like "Chenoweth based his assessments on surface and ship observations", IDK, something to wrap it up, since the article ends otherwise on an unfinished note, especially since his analysis hasn't been approved (yet).

Added a little bit more about Chenoweth's study to the season summary--12george1 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's it. Should be easy, hopefully. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got around to doing more work on this article. Thanks for the review--12george1 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]