# Talk:1916 Pensacola hurricane

This review is transcluded from Talk:1916 Pensacola hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 19:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

"(as a tropical system)" I dont think that is needed since you clearly state the other system was another storm
Add note 1 to the damage in lead and the first mention in the body
"The hurricane maitnained" typo there
"last observed continuing in this direction" I don't think this part is needed.
"topping records set in three months prior in the 1916 Gulf Coast hurricane" missing some word(s)
"All wires in Pensacola" what kind of wires?
Pretty good article you crafted there. It just needs a few minor fixes. NoahTalk 19:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt review! These were all sensible qualms, so I've made the changes accordingly. As for note 1, I think that its first appearance in the article is sufficient since it does make the assertion that all monetary values in the article, regardless of position, are in 1916 USD. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 02:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently this storm caused the other article (which is a stub). Merge it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Dont see why not. Unless there is a lot that could be added to the other article. NoahTalk 14:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Strongly Support – If it's the same storm, we don't need another article. Also, I don't see enough content to justify having another (impact-centered) article for the Great Lakes. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)