Talk:Hurricane Daisy (1962)

Hurricane Daisy (1962) 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.

Hurricane Daisy (1962) is part of the 1962 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
Date	Process	Result
March 6, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
July 31, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

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).

Merge

Non-notable storm, minimal info. This is getting irritating. Merge -- §Hurricane ERIC § archive -- my dropsonde 04:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging sounds good. Hurricanehink 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against Merge added more infomation. Storm05 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You added very little. The death toll was 5, not 24. The damage total, when inflated, is $62 million, nowhere near the total you gave. The storm is still not notable enough for its own article. Why not add the impact section to the season summary??? Hurricanehink 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link, it says the hurricane killed 24 people Storm05 17:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an official source. You need to go to NOAA for official sources. NOAA's list of deadliest cyclones is an excellent source, but it only lists cyclones that had or may have had at least 25 deaths. Daisy is not in there. — jdorje (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you add information, you need to add the reference inline to the article. Otherwise how are people supposed to know where the info came from? You can't expect someone to read through all of the external links to find the one place that says the storm caused 24 rather than 5 deaths. — jdorje (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

There is minimal notable information. More impact is needed. Jdorje 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that the article is new and rewriten, what more is needed for B? Juliancolton (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some more sources, as its coverage on Canada is lacking. "Although total damage estimates are univaliable, it is estimated that damages could surpass $10 million (1962 USD) dollars" - That makes no sense. Although I know it's from the preliminary report, damage reports likely have been released in the 45 years since then. This is why some more research is needed. Typos need to be fixed, and the overall writing is mediocre. It's a decent start, however. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, typos are fixed, I improved the writing somewhat, and I added a little more impact. Juliancolton (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my other comments still need to be addressed. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I am still looking for canada info. Juliancolton (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't find any info other than the preliminary report. Also, I believe it is up to B class standards. Juliancolton (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty more information in the sources you have used. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rainfall image added. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you, it really helps the article. Juliancolton (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Daisy (1962)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Daisy was the worst flooding in New England since Hurricane Diane in 1955. " to ""Hurricane Daisy brought the New England since Hurricane Diane in 1955" Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) revealed the presence of a tropical disturbance east of the Leeward Islands on September 28.[1]" stick an "A" before here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A nor'easter offshore the East Coast of the United States caused Daisy to curve northward on October 5." no need for "shore". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" The remnants of Daisy re-emerged into the Atlantic" Atlantic what? Ocean? I'm saying this because you mention Atlantic Canada earlier. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"As a result of the formation of the tropical depression on September 30, the Leeward Islands were put under hurricane watches and gale warnings." to "Upon becoming a tropical cyclone, hurricane watches and gale warnings for the the Leeward Islands." Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A total of 7.71 inches (196 mm) of precipitation fell in Portland, Maine within 24 hours, 3.13 inches (80 mm) of it in only 6 hours. As a result, this was the highest 24 hour rainfall total for Portland, which stood until Hurricane Bob in 1991.[7]" should IMO be changed to "A total of 7.71 inches (196 mm) of precipitation fell in Portland, Maine within 24 hours, 3.13 inches (80 mm) of which fell in only 6 hours. Subsequently, Hurricane Daisy set a then-record the highest 24 hour rainfall total for Portland; however, this recorded was broken during Hurricane Bob in 1991.[7]" Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is getting choppy here. "Also, lobster fishing ships suffered from heavy losses due to Daisy.[2] Boat damages were severe, with hundreds of small boats destroyed, and many larger boats damaged.[9] " should IMO be revised to "Damages to boats were severe; hundreds of small boats were destroyedwhile many larger boats were damaged.[9] In addition, the lobster industry suffered heavy losses from the system. " Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Also, a pier was washed away in the high surf.[4] Total damage from wave and tide was $600,000.[9] " "Also" should be revised to "In addition," IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" for 4 days in " spell out 4. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Houses with roof shingles blown off were common in Massachusetts.[9]" to "Throughout Massachusetts, many roofs were blown off of houses." Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" causing 16,000 CAD in damage." USD? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's only $14,866 USD according to this--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have addressed/fixed all of your issues.--12george1 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone