# Talk:1926 Nassau hurricane

Sorry to the article creator, but there's little information of value here. If the deaths and the damages are unknown, chances are there's not enough information for a full article. What is here could be merged with the seasonal article, though. Hurricanehink 19:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We could give a little time to find more information, but as it is, I agree. — jdorje (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The Monthly Weather Review has a lot of detailed information. That's all I have to say. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, the deaths now justify the article's existence. Hurricanehink 20:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've recently added the number of deaths to the article to make it more useful. Is it looking and sounding better now?

It is still way too short.  Go through the MWR and find all the information you can and add it. — jdorje (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Can a track map be made by jdjorge's tracking program for this storm? I have been waiting for several months. CapeVerdeWave 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1926 Nassau hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: CapeVerdeWave (talk · contribs) 19:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

You should probably link SSHS somewhere in the lead when you mention Cat 4
I have made the following change: it was a potent Category 4 hurricane → it was a potent Category 4 hurricane on the present-day Saffir–Simpson scale
Since Bahamas
What do you mean? Please clarify.
What is the "sponge fleet"?
I have clarified: destroying roughly 20% of the sponge fleet → destroying roughly 20% of the sponging fleet
"In all, the storm killed as many as 464 people" - should you mention the range of going up to 598, as per the infobox?
The toll of 598 was unofficial. To clarify: the storm killed as many as 464 people → the storm killed at least 464 people—unofficially up to 598—
Minor quibble, but the reanalysis did not say that the storm developed on the 22nd, just that it was first observed on that date, and lack of observations prevented an earlier known genesis
I have added: "the Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) initialized"
Ref 7 (Hurricaneville) does not appear to work
I have added the archival URL.
"but warnings did not reach Family (Out) Islanders or seafarers" - this is unclear what it means unless you click on the link. Could you make it clearer you're referring to a group of islands?
Does this help?: but warnings did not reach Family (Out) Islanders or seafarers → warnings did not reach Family Islanders—residents of the Out Islands, the majority of the Bahaman archipelago—
Could you move the chart to be right-aligned for the "Impact, aftermath, and recovery" section?
This has been done.
Also, isn't recovery and aftermath redundant in the section title for "Impact, aftermath, and recovery"?
I have fixed this.
"The storm caused F2-level wind damage in Puerto Rico, implying peak gusts of 113–157 mph (182–253 km/h); this in turn suggested that sustained winds of Category 2 intensity occurred on the island." - not sure why the Fujita scale is getting a mention, unless there were tornadoes as well? I'd suggest something like "Due to the level of wind damage, wind gusts were estimated at..." or something
The source was a study that used the Fujita scale to estimated wind speeds based on observable damage. My correction: A study concluded that, due to the level of wind damage (equal to F2 on the modern Fujita scale), estimated wind gusts peaked at 113–157 mph (182–253 km/h) in Puerto Rico, suggesting Category 2 sustained winds there.
"At Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, rescuers located at least 59 dead by July 29." - there should be more of a transition from the Puerto Rico part to Hispaniola
I have added it.
Some of the paragraphs in the Bahamas section are far too long. One is 12 lines long on my computer. Could you split them up so they're a bit more reasonable?
I have done so. Are they more manageable now?
"Altogether 831 people lost their homes. " - parts like this make it confusing whether you're referring to a single island, or a group of them
I added "islandwide" to specify.
"A future Governor-General of the Bahamas, Clifford Darling, then age four, rode out the storm on Acklins: he was forced to flee rising seawater with eight families and his own. " - I think the wording could be stronger here. The "and his own" part confused me a bit. Also where did he flee to?
Does this clear the matter up? The storm destroyed 13 more at Pastell's and 22 at Chester's; at the latter place rising seawater forced nine families to flee to a hilltop, including that of four-year-old Clifford Darling, a future Governor-General of the Bahamas, who was carried to safety in a sack.
"On Long Island the cyclone generated an estimated surge of 1.49 m (4.9 ft)" - make sure all units are imperial first, not metric, for consistency.
This is a done deal as well.
"Damage to the canal and the road totaled over ₤200." - I know it was only 1926, but ₤200 is only like $15,000 today. Since the source says "over ₤200", I don't think this is that important.
I have removed it.
Royal palms were shorn of their crowns, save but a few fronds, "like roosters after a cockfight".  Winds crumpled steel telegraph poles "as if made of tin". Centuries-old trees were blown down as well, and frame buildings were "reduced to kindling". - who said these quotes? All quotes need to be attributed, here and elsewhere, even if it's something like "Newspapers described the scene as X". A lot of the article relies a bit too much on unattributed quotes, so this one sticks out as a bit of an issue.
Is this sufficient?: Roy W. Miner, curator of lower invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History, wrote that royal palms were shorn of their crowns, save but a few fronds, "like roosters after a cockfight"; he also noted that winds crumpled steel telegraph poles "as if made of tin", blew down centuries-old trees, and "reduced to kindling" frame buildings. ... According to the The Nassau Guardian, fierce winds flayed automobile roofs, turning them into "ribbons", and chiseled the cars' enamel; the effect on the vehicles' paint mimicked "the fire of blow lamps". The Tribune reported that all cropland was underwater and "faced complete destruction".
I'm not sure how useful the image is of Bay Street, since the image was taken nearly a century after the storm (2012)
I know, but I need enough illustrations to fill out the article.
In Nassau the storm also destroyed warehouses containing liquor on the northern side of Bay Street. - you don't need to link common words like liquor or warehouses, or later on with "An apartment complex", garages, church, cafe, and skylight
I have taken this into account now.
"At the time the cyclone was the first July hurricane to be noted in eastern Florida" - yup, I checked this and this is accurate
"Royal palms" are linked twice. Watch for duplicate linking
I fixed this as well.
A good read, but a few times it felt a bit like a list, going island by island and listing the number of damaged houses or affected people. That's not a huge issue for GAN, but if you're planning on taking the article to FAC down the road, it's something to consider. Lemme know if you have questions about any of these issues. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  21:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)