# Talk:Hurricane Able (1952)

There's too little information here, and the storm did very little. I vote this be merged. Hurricanehink 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

StormO5, why do you keep creating new stub articles?  Why can't you add on to existing articles, and discuss the creation of new articles on the wikiproject page? Jdorje 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with the merge, shall I get the axe? -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Here, you can borrow my axe. Just get it over soon so no one gets attached to it. ;) Hurricanehink 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
[fake, defensive, haughty voice] I'll use my axe thank you very much ;). -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this report has been incorporated into the article, so I'd suggest taking a look: http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/080/mwr-080-08-0138.pdf Cucurbitaceae (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He's aware.  I was asked a question about a rainfall amount within that document just yesterday.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I used it. It appears in the 1952 MWR. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, just wanted to be sure. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Able (1952)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing your article over the next several days! I will make non-controversial copyedits and minor fixes along the way, and should soon be back to make my report. Good luck! (This is my first review, but since I have added my second GA nominee, I felt it was only fair to start reviewing too! ;]) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the review so far! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye, and the next day estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) as they reported concentric eyewalls." - I'm sorry, but I cannot figure out what you are trying to say since the second clause has no predicate.
The predicate is the same as the first clause. It's like, if I say: "The dog wagged its tail, and the next day was put to sleep." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Now that you explain it, it makes sense. (I had thought that "estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h)" was a gerund phrase with associated modifiers.) However, it still reads slightly confusingly. Could we try something like:
By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye, and the next day they estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) as they reported concentric eyewalls.
Or,
By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye and, the following day, estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) while they reported concentric eyewalls.
Either of these (besides breaking the sentence into two sentences) reads better in my opinion.
IDK, the first one has two "they"s, which I think is redundant. The second one just replaces "next" and "as", making it longer. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe this:
By that time, the Hurricane Hunters reported a well-defined eye and estimated winds of 125 mph (200 km/h) while reporting concentric eyewalls the next day.
Really though, it's up to you to decide whether you want to since it is a matter of personal preference.
Why not wikilink to the 1952 Atlantic hurricane season in the "See also" section?
It's already linked in the lede and the infobox, as well as in the button bar on the bottom. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, then.
Out of curiosity, how do the meteorologists know when Able formed and when it became a tropical storm if they first observed it on August 25, as stated in the lead.
It wasn't first observed in general, just that was when it was first observed by the Hurricane Hunters. Although not present in the available sources, I assume they extrapolated its track back to the coast based on observations in the Cape Verde islands. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
(NOTE: This isn't an issue; I was just wondering!)
The statement that "It was first observed by the Hurricane Hunters on August 25 to the north of the Lesser Antilles" in the lead is not supported in the text. In fact, the text gives the impression that it was discovered August 18. (This source supports it, however, so why not add a citation to it in the lead or state it a little more clearly in the body text.)
"The next day [August 25], the Miami Weather Bureau Office initiated advisories on Tropical Storm Able after the Hurricane Hunters confirmed the presence of a poorly defined center." The article prose just gives greater clarification to what is summarized in the lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, that isn't much of an issue.
"A smaller than normal hurricane..." - The size of Able is not given in citation.
Huh, I swear I saw that somewhere, but I couldn't find it, so I removed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed
National Arboretum is a disambig page.
Didn't know, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed
Reference #11 is a dead link. You linked to "http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcmidatl.html.html", which is a dead link (404 error). Didn't you mean to link to "http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcmidatl.html", which is a working link?
Heh, yea. Don't know how that happened. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  04:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 Fixed
Okay, now that those issues are out of the way for the most part, I have found some more sources you may be interested in. (It's fine if you don't use them.)

The Virginia Department of Emergency Management gives information about the strength and exact location of the tornado that struck Virginia.
Yea, I saw that before and opted not to use it, but I didn't realize they included the strength, so I added it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Advances in geophysics, Volume 17 mentions that Able weakly interacted with the environment yet still remained an appreciable storm.
Yea, the same info appears in ref #1, how Able was able to remain a tropical storm over land for so long. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
This is a 6 page report on Hurrcane Able of 1952.
That ref appears in ref #1. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done
Overall summary
GA review (see here for criteria)
I think this passes the GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Apart from the one sentence mentioned above, the prose looks good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Thank you for your hard work!
Thanks for the review! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Able (1952). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904212755/http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/hurricane.cfm to http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/hurricane.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)