# Talk:Hurricane David

Does anyone have any info on *when* this hurricane was around?

Do you really think a clean up is nessisary? All it needs is a date. 
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

I edited this to include the fact that Hurricane David hit tiny Dominica (not to be confused with the Dominican Republic), killing several people there and leaveing 90+ people homeless.  Not only that, it crippled the country for a long time, keeping schools closed for over a year. David hit Dominica on Aug 29, 1979.

More impact, better intro, better wikification. Jdorje 21:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Hurricanehink 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, great work as always.  Is there any info on preparations or aftermath of the storm?  The way it's structured now almost everything is in the "Impact" section (which isn't fundamentally bad, but it makes the TOC look ugly).  Should be nominated for A-class. — jdorje (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, I couldn't find anything on the preparations. I might take another look later on, but I'm pretty sure there isn't much there. Hurricanehink 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I couldn't find any impact pictures that weren't copyrighted, JTLYK. Hurricanehink 14:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This would be a good choice for the next FAC.  I think more on the aftermath is needed, however - certainly in DR and PR, and possibly in the US.  I created an aftermath section but haven't filled out any new sections yet. — jdorje (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously? Cool! I'd help, but I'm currently working on another project (Mitch). Bring it up at the assessments page, and see if anyone there can help here. Hurricanehink 00:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to update the rainfall information concerning this hurricane.  The rainfall statistics from the old NHC preliminary report - which appears to have been gleaned from an NCDC report - were incomplete from Florida and the Carolinas according to cooperative daily rainfall observations from NCDC and the old HPC QPE's used to verify the rainfall forecasts.  All involved in this project should beware of rainfall figures from the NHC reports - they tended to focus on maximum 24-hour amounts and what they consider "core rainfall" until relatively recently.  thegreatdr 21:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. This statement needs to be sourced: "The ships doctor and helicopter pilot were awarded medals for their work.[citation needed]" It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have added an article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if the use of the CLIQR database is an issue in this article.  It's pretty obvious in the Northern Hemisphere map series that David's extratropical cyclone phase continued for at least 2 more days after the alleged "dissipation" southeast of Greenland.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane David. 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/20110104020243/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1979.pdf to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1979.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050904212240/http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/tornado.cfm to http://www.vaemergency.com/newsroom/history/tornado.cfm
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6fh9gLEFL?url=http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/worstts.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/worstts.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101207184650/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml
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) 22:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane David. 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/20060429011902/http://bahamasweather.org.bs/tropical/history/index.php to http://www.bahamasweather.org.bs/tropical/history/index.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060226083721/http://weather.wtoc.com/tropical/history.htm to http://weather.wtoc.com/tropical/history.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/worstts.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060210150750/http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm79.html to http://www.ns.ec.gc.ca/weather/hurricane/storm79.html
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) 01:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I feel like the image on 8/31 is a better option than the image on 8/30. Both are the same type of image but the 8/31 image is more iconic as it has has been around for way longer and better represents the storm's peak intensity. The 8/30 image may be slightly stronger, but it doesn't represent the storm as well since it was in the middle of an EWRC and looks more like a category 3 IMO. Peak intensity isn't always the most important factor when choosing an image. What do you think @Columbia719? Hetacervus (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

When people claim that an image is more iconic, I expect evidence to back the claim that the image is more iconic, rather than state that its presence in the article proves that it's iconic. I also expect seeing numerous links to sites, not including Wikipedia mirrors, that uses the image claimed to be iconic. Furthermore, the storm was not at its peak intensity in the 8/31 image, and it should not claim it was at its peak. The 8/30 image was taken 30 minutes before its arbitrary peak intensity, 30 August 18:00, as recorded in the HURDAT data archives. According to WP:WPTC/IMG, [w]here possible, the picture of the storm used should be a satellite image at or near its official peak intensity as determined by their respective Regional Specialized Meteorological Center. The report did not say the storm underwent an eyewall replacement cycle when that image was taken. Whether the storm looks like a Category 3 to you does not matter. The eye looks cloudy because of the angle when the image was taken. Normal readers won't, nor shouldn't, care about the structure. The storm does not cause conflicts with a sentence in WP:WPTC/IMG that says the clarity of the storm image and its context should be prioritized over its exact time close to its peak intensity, as the image show[s] more of the storm and its surroundings, is not of low resolution, and contains little areas of no data that don't obstruct the storm and its surroundings. Columbia719 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Fair points. For older storms like these, there aren't many images other than in wikipedia that can further clarify which is more iconic. I'll agree that the current image shows more of the storm's surroundings and is overall a better option by following WPTC's guidelines. Any arguments I have are more subjective than anything, thanks for your time. Hetacervus (talk) 03:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Glad to discuss the matter with you, and thank you for your cooperation. Columbia719 (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Just my few cents on the matter.
1. Near peak intensity images can be used, however as in the rule, "[n]ear" peak intensity may be considered subjective, and discussion at talk pages should be utilized to get feedback on if one image is preferred despite being not exactly representative of a a cyclone's peak intensity. The so-called "peak intensity" has David's eye not as well-pronounced as compared to the 15Z image. It is also within 5 knots of the peak intensity, as it would later get 150 knots around the time of this image. If this would be a suitable compromise, then it would be acceptable (but I would obviously prefer to use the 15Z image.)
2."The eye looks cloudy because of the angle when the image was taken." This is just categorically FALSE, as  the SMS-2 satellite was positioned at 75°W at the time of picture. A much closer AVHRR image (at 4km) also shows the eye but not as clear as the 15Z image.
3. "Normal readers won't, nor shouldn't, care about the structure." That is false in my opinion, as many good articles like Hurricane Andrew or Hurricane Allen use images where their eye is much more pronounced, rather than their peak images. You may argue because those are more iconic, but their peak images are also shown in the media as well, so why not also use them?
To conclude, I'll add this tidbit, also from the rule: If... the storm's peak image does not look like a good representation of the storm, then a high-quality image from any of the storm's peaks may be used (or the most iconic image, if one exists). Regards, 👦 08:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)