Talk:Tropical Storm Abby (1964)

Tropical Storm Abby (1964) 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: June 13, 2014. (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
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).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Abby (1964)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 03:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Few minor things.

With UTC, have you considered using colons? It's noticeable right next to the CDT.
"showed an abrupt in organization" - abrupt... change?
It'd be great to see another mention of the date toward the end of the first MH paragraph
"being far less than 100 mi (155 km) in diameter." - unless you're converting from something else, 100 mi should round to 160 km
Seeing as you only mention the town of Edna once, I wondered why you specified that the storm moved over that small, random town?
- It was mentioned in the reports so I figured why not include it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link "Gale warnings"? Ditto "Colorado River (Texas)"
"Abby's small size results in its effects being limited" - how come the present tense?
"and tossed the structure 75 yd (69 m)" - given that you already use ft elsewhere in the article, could you convert this to ft, with m in parenthesis?
Not sure if you realized, but Storm data goes back to 1959 and has info on the storm, but not sure if it's redundant or not.
- Nothing extra of interest there, everything is already in the preliminary report :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. Pretty good article :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got to everything. Thanks for the review, Hink!! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]