# Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1980)

Content looks decent. The article mostly needs some copyediting. A while back I was considering making this article, and so here are two links I got that could be helpful.

NCDC - Given that we know Danielle spawned a few tornadoes, NCDC lists 6 tornadoes for early September 1980 in Texas. If you can find a source that the sixth one was caused by Danielle (it occurred in Jefferson County), then you can also add that the tornado caused $250,000 in damage. At the very least, it'd be something for the damage qualifier in the infobox
[1] - the storm was included in the 1980 Summary for Significant Floods
--♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Danielle (1980)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I take back my comments I said above (that was from four years ago!). Since the NCDC reports don't say it was from Danielle, I don't think the tornado reports should be included. If that means losing the damage total, then that's fine. The damage total should be for the whole storm, not for its associated tornadoes. 
How was Danielle the 8th tropical cyclone but only "Tropical Depression Six"? (lack of consistency between lede and MH)
No; the tropical wave developed into Tropical Depression Six, degenerated, and later redeveloped into Tropical Depression Eight in the Gulf of Mexico.--12george1 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I got that, but it was still confusing. I'd avoid saying it developed into TD 6, and just say it developed into a tropical depression. This is a rare instance where I think not saying the depression number is more helpful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"After tracking westward and entering the Gulf of Mexico, the system quickly developed into a tropical depression" - it doesn't seem that way. It seems like the system gradually redeveloped in the GoM, since it reformed south of Louisiana
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Ehh, not really. Now it says it gradually developed on September 4. That could be ambiguous whether it gradually developed starting on that day, or its preceding gradual development led to a TD classification that day. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, seeing as it was a reformation, have you asked about getting a track map to feature the original portion of the track? 
No, it wouldn't be appropriate to have the other portion of the track other Danielle's map, unlike Tropical Depression Five in 1988, which remained the same tropical system.--12george1 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, since the NHC considered them separate systems. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"Rainfall was heavier in Texas, peaking at 18.29 inches (465 mm)." - since that's such a high total, I'd specify where in Texas the peak was
" $277,500 (1980 USD) in losses" - losses or damage? Losses implies lost product.
$277,500 was removed entirely--12george1 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
.Can you give a better location where Danielle first developed in the MH? 
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
"Although intensification was initially minimal, the National Hurricane Center noted early on September 5 that "any further strengthening tonight or Friday would require upgrading it to a tropical storm"." - seems like a kinda weird quote. Most depressions would become tropical storms if they intensified any. Were there any factors favoring/inhibiting intensification?
You should mention on that basis that Danielle was upgraded to a TS, as well as how its peak was estimated. The MH is lacking in general with more specifics.
"The storm steadily weakened after moving inland and was downgraded to tropical depression less than 18 hours later." - what date was this?
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It's weird to have both "18 hours later" and the exact UTC time. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
" did not dissipated" - grammar?
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
"The National Weather Service forecast the storm to produce 3 to 5 inches (76 to 130 mm) of rain and issued flash flood watches from Freeport to Sabine Pass" - two thing. First, is the rainfall forecast important? And second, you should mention the state for those locations, since it's the beginning of a new section.
Done--12george1 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
No need to mention Texas twice in the same sentence. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
"spilling all 11 crewmen overboard" - is that the appropriate verb?
Better?--12george1 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Ehh, "thrusting" is a bit sexual. What's wrong with "washing"? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
"Thrusting" is only a bit sexual if you think like that :P. Anyway, I replaced it with "washing"--12george1 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
"All but one crewman were rescued by the United States Coast Guard." - you should emphasize that as counting as one of the deaths.
Done--12george1 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
" Danielle also caused a United States Coast Guard helicopter crashed into the sea" - grammar/missing word
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Ref 11 doesn't say anything about the effects in Louisiana being minimal.
"In Texas, a weather station near Port Arthur reported record rainfall for that city of 17.16 inches (436 mm)." - the "for that city" seems redundant. And is that a daily record? A 24-hour record?
Fixed--12george1 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
"In Port Arthur, twelve homes were reported flooded" - you mention the town earlier, so why not mention this when you mention the town?
Fixed; it turned out that the rainfall measurement was not taken in Port Arthur.--12george1 (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There is an inconsistency. The prelim report says 25 inches of rainfall in Junction, Texas, but the article says the peak was 18 inches. Consult David Roth over that.
Another rainfall issue.  I e-mailed the New Braunfels/San Antonio office to check on this rainfall report.  It can sometimes take weeks to sort out an issue like this.  If it was within the data reported to NCDC, it would have made the rainfall graphic.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
How many counties were declared disaster areas? 
There is probably more info out there, given that the storm hit the US. Try finding some more.
I'll leave the GA on hold for seven days. Good luck! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  23:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary responses mention that this report was from a ranch 10 miles northwest of town, not the airport or COOP site, so it may be a real unofficial report from the public.  We're waiting to hear from someone who worked at the old SAT WSFO to check on its veracity/source.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There is not enough information at this time to add the amount into the TC rainfall pages for the storm, though it will be added to the spreadsheet with an annotation off to the side explaining what little is known about it.  Right now, it is more speculation than fact...32 years has passed.  It appears questionable, as the nearby reports are all between 7-9.99".  If anyone else in that vicinity had reported 10-20" of rain, I think it would have enough local support to be added to the graphic.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. That makes a lot of sense given the totals nearby. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)