# Talk:1855 Atlantic hurricane season

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 1855 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 "Partagas":
From 1853 Atlantic hurricane season: Jose F. Partagas (1996). Year 1853 (PDF). Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (Report). Miami, Florida: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. pp. 21–26. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
From 1854 Atlantic hurricane season: Jose F. Partagas (1996). Year 1854 (PDF). Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (Report). Miami, Florida: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. pp. 21–26. Retrieved May 2, 2013.

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⚡ 15:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1855 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Lead

"The 1855 Atlantic hurricane season featured no tropical cyclone landfalls on the East Coast of the United States" - This should NOT be the first sentence of the article; focus on where they did land, or the relative paucity of known hurricanes, THEN mention where they did not.
Better?--12george1 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Much. Thank you. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Other

You mention a downgraded hurricane in the lead, but nowhere else. This needs summarised in the article.
Are you asking me to mention that downgraded hurricane as a separate section or something like that?--12george1 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
It would seem to make sense, and should explain why it was rejected, if at all possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This has somewhat of a paucity of sources. The secondary sources mention the New York Times; all the New York Times articles are available online for free, and would be worth using to add detail.
Better?--12george1 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks better, aye. I mean, this is always going to be a short article, but may as well include relevant bits... Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, obviously, this is an article where there's a limited amount of information to use. But I'm happy it's a good, complete description of the subject. Pass. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)