# Talk:Hurricane Betsy (1956)

More impact, better intro, better storm history...this is just slightly more than a stub. Jdorje 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Im having trouble trying to upload Betsy 1956 storm track Storm05 14:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you link me to it? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 This is the best i can do. Storm05 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this one doesn't have much meaningful content. All this info is pretty much already described on the 1956 page. Support. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 02:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The content's better than most of the ones we've merged; with some work it could be passable.  I dunno. Jdorje 03:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Plus, the storm is at least notable. Every other article that's been merged in the last two weeks has been short about a weak or fish storm. I say hold of on merge. Hurricanehink 12:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Added more informationStorm05 15:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Betsy (1956)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contribs) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice,fiction, and lists): 
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: 

Nick work Hink, I am passing the article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Betsy (1956). 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6bxpFoAqi?url=http://www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/49EA64D0-305B-4881-8B85-04B518004BD5/0/Ciclones_en_PR.pdf to http://www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/49EA64D0-305B-4881-8B85-04B518004BD5/0/Ciclones_en_PR.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111023004321/http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=1263 to http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=1263
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) 21:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)