Talk:Hurricane Gaston (2004)

message: This article needs a full copyedit, with restructuring (to have more than 1 section) and a fair share of grammar/spelling fixes. Jdorje 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of fixing grammar/spelling/other issues. -- RattleMan 05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah: also, the majority of the impact section seems to be stolen from the Times Dispatch.  In my estimation it would be best to delete the whole impact section and rewrite it from scratch.  Basically, none of the writings by this user can be trusted. Jdorje 05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point about this user, and hopefully rebuild it. Hurricanehink 14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cited some of the information that if forgot to cite when I wrote the article Storm05 18:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually impressed with how extensive this article is. Is a copyedit really nessisary? Perhaps I read it after changes were made but I think that the article is great. Some of the sections could use to be expanded, but other than that, it's a pretty solid article. I'm removing the cleanup notice. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as an example, the intro does not give the year/season, or the month/date, or link to tropical cyclone.  The rest of the writing is...passable. Jdorje 03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Date added to intro. What needs to be done to make the writing more than "passable". A still just see a few spotted gramatical errors and typos, but maybe it's me. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There are a fair number of misspellings and grammatical errors.  A lot of the text seems like "spaghetti" in that it is just a disconnected list of facts with little overall narrative thread.  Metric units are not widely included.  Inline references should be included (via <ref> and <reference/>). Jdorje 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a copy edit on this article and im suggesting to upgadge it to B-Class if thats okay. Storm05 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intro is too short and contains misspellings. — jdorje (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are also numerous spelling and tense problems throughout the article. — jdorje (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is nearing B Class, because I added more pictures Storm05 18:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem wasn't too few pictures, and in fact there's probably too many pics right now. The problem was the spelling and grammar problems throughout the article. Hurricanehink 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It can never be B-class while it has misspellings in the intro. — jdorje (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ive corrected some spelling and grammar errors and can a "stories of survial" section be included in the article. Storm05 17:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell you've only made the spelling worse.  Please, please, please use a spell checker.  Also, "stories of survival" are not encyclopedic.  I have my own story of survival (I drove from Savannah to Wilmington through this storm), but it doesn't belong in the article.  Millions of people "survived" this storm. — jdorje (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What spell checker?!. i cant find it. Storm05 18:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one in Microsoft Word. You can probably download one from the internet somewhere. --Golbez 18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: http://www.google.com/search?q=spell+checker — jdorje (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have used the spell checker and checked and double checked the article and found no spelling errors so this article must be ready to be upgraded to a B. Storm05 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are still at least 4 misspellings in the intro. — jdorje (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The Hurricane Katrina article had a lot of pictures, so why are you saying that this article has too many pictures , I dont understand that. Storm05 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurricane Katrina was also the costliest hurricane U.S. history, whereas Gaston didn't even cause 1% of its damage. Gaston was a very localized event, so why are you so obsessed with this article? Did you go through it? Hurricanehink 20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I did and I also saw a special on this storm Storm05 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that explains it. Still, you have to be objective. I would love to write a Katrina sized article for any storm that came through my area, but only those that went through it would be interested. If you have Microsoft Word, you might want to try using the spelling and grammar check, no offense. Fixing the many errors would bring this up to B class for sure. Hurricanehink 20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed the spelling , now its time for this article to be upgraded to B Class. Storm05 13:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Almost. There are places where the information is generalized; people were evacuated, some officials assumed, many computer models, major freshwater flooding. There are too many sections. The unpredictability section could easily go in the preparations, or vice versa. Too many times you use too short of sentences. As Gaston moved inland it dumped very heavy rain over central Virginia. The hardest hit area was Richmond where over 12 inches fell. What is wrong with saying, Upon reaching central Virginia, Gaston dropped torrential precipitation, with Richmond being the area hardest hit wit 12 inches of rain." That is about as long as one of your sentences, yet is much more consise. This is rampant throughout the article, and makes it a little boring to read. Imagine if I wrote like this. I keep using small sentences. This is simple to read. Or.... Imagine if I wrote like this, by using longer sentences that are more interesting to read. There's no need to have such a complex death toll table. Just list the county and the number of deaths. It's almost there, but still needs some work. Hurricanehink 15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Floyd and other articles have structures similar to the Gaston article. Storm05 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The top-level structure is fine.  But the secondary structure (section ordering) makes little sense.  In some places you order the sections by location (South Carolina/Virginia), and in other places you order them by type of damage (flooding/deaths). — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Storm05, there is little comparison between Gaston and Katrina. The reason because they had those sections was due to the widespread effects. Gaston was relatively little. Hurricanehink 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think he's referring to the Storm history/Preparations/Impact/Aftermath structure that we've taken to using.  Gaston does follow this structure.  The problem is in the lower-level structure.  Why are there separate sections on "Virginia", "Flooding", and "Close calls"?  Didn't the Flooding happen in Virginia?  And weren't the close calls caused by flooding? — jdorje (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the flooding happened in Virginia and the close calls were caused by flooding. Storm05 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got rid of some of the unneeded sections. This article is in need of inline sources and some more structure to the impact section. Hurricanehink 20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit 

message: Must've forgot to cite the information in the Impact section. Storm05 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Whoops!

message: I've read this article and feel that it is very informative, but do we really need such an article?Omni ND 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of the article is to show the storm's devestating effects on Richmond. Rarely does a storm effect a major city. However, the article does not need to be as long as it is. The effects were fairly localized. Hurricanehink 21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this necessary? 

message: I think this article looks poorly organized becaused there are a lot of pictures in an article that deserves more text.juan andrés 23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think more text is needed.  There may be slightly too many pictures (like 1 too many) but a bigger problem is just picture and section layout.  Moving things around could fix most of the problems. — jdorje (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there are just a few too many pictures. I don't like it when there are pictures on the left side and the right side at the same time. It can be a distraction and throw-off to some people on some browsers. We could take out one or two pictures of automobile damage and maybe the one of the tree damage or the landslide. —BazookaJoe 01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I still think it's a B class. While there are some unsourced statements, the article is, in general, informative. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many pictures

message: *Charleston, SC report
*Wilmington, NC report
*Raleigh, NC report
*Wakefield, VA report
*Binghamton, NY report
These should probably be used in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NWS reports 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hurricane Gaston (2004). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051022110111/http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/weather/special/storm/2004/atlantic/gaston/news.html to http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/weather/special/storm/2004/atlantic/gaston/news.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Gaston (2004). 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/20081011193657/http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/winds_c_point_rich.htm to http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/winds_c_point_rich.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hurricane Gaston redirects here, so this article should be Hurricane Gaston rather than Hurricane Gaston (2004). It's also the only storm named Gaston with an article. CooperScience (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose for virtually same reasons as before. I really think you should cool it with the constant RMs as most of them don’t really even hold enough weight to support them. In this case, Gaston 2004 doesn’t really hold the primary topic, since Gaston 2010 was also an interesting storm, plus the 2016 incarnation was much stronger then this one. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither of those storms made landfall, and as we see with storms like Allison (2001) and Karl (2010), effects, not strength, matters. And this is the last RM I am doing for a while. Although I do agree with you on the rate of RMs. I will make it less frequent (although I said this is the last one I will do for a while). CooperScience (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

text: If this is not a primary topic, then I would suggest that the redirect be changed. CooperScience (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 1 April 2018