Talk:1804 New England hurricane/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any way to add an image to the article? Even a map of New England covered with snow would be better than nothing.

• There's a track map that I created from the Harvard Forest data, but an outstanding block on Commons and an unsuccessful block appeal have kept me from it – if you want, I could email it to you.

• Maybe ask User:Cyclonebiskit? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Given how close the current title is to "Snow Hurricane of 1804" (just a reorganization of the wording), I don't think you need to mention that as an alternate title.

• Removed.

• "...was the first tropical cyclone in recorded history known to produce snowfall." - you sure that applies to all TC's worldwide? Or just Atlantic?

• Reworded and cited. I dislike the wording of "world history," but it'll do for now, I suppose.

• "An unusual late-season storm in the 1804 Atlantic hurricane season" - technically there was no season then. Why not just "... in 1804"? Especially if it already says "late-season" (which I'm fine with more in theory than 1804 AHS)

• Fixed.

• "By the morning of 9 October, the movement of a trough by the Virginia Capes was noted, and as the disturbance progressed along the East Coast, it was steered over New England as a result." - way too verbose. --> "By early on 9 October, a trough near the Virginia Capes turned the disturbance toward New England." There, half as long and much easier to read.

• Done.

• The first paragraph of the MH says peak of "100 mph (175 km/h)", but the infobox says "110 mph (175 km/h)"

• Derp, fixed.

• But the MH still doesn't match the infobox, as far as peak. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Gaaah. Fixed.

• "strong gusts inflicted significant property damage, especially to churches, and extensive yet negligible impairment to private property was observed" - so heavy damage, but negligible damage? Really should be clearer and less verbose.

• I've tried to clear it up a bit; the damage was widespread but negligible (i.e., minor). It's still kind of wordy and messy... no other wordings have really struck me yet. :\

• So churches were damaged more heavily than houses? I don't get it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• ...clarified.

• You mention ship damage in both the 2nd and 3rd lede paragraphs. Why?

• Clarified so that one primarily referred to the industries while the other related to vessel damage (i.e., not shipping)

• Isn't a damaged ship related to shipping industry? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yeppers, fixed.

• "the though's motion" - you mean "trough" here, right?

• Fixed.

• "historical documents confirm it quickly reached Chesapeake Bay later that morning with west-to-north winds" - did the hurricane have west-to-north winds? Or was the confirmation based on those winds?

• Clarified... ish?

That's it through the MH section. Looking pretty good so far. :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think you should split the first paragraph of "impact and records", starting a new paragraph at " In the Middle-Atlantic states"

• Done, yeeep.

• " it caused little injury to watercraft, though many boats and ships were capsized" - I'd just nix the first part, since it seems contradictory. Little damage, but many sank? I'd merge that part with "shipwrecks led to 16 deaths"

• That was a mistake in writing; I meant to write something along the lines of "little damage on land but a lot on water"

• "with considerable destruction... cattle" ?? Exploding cows?

• Err... maybe "destruction" wasn't the best word to use here. :P

• "A negative storm tide observed at Baltimore triggered the grounding of multiple boats" --> "A negative storm tide at Baltimore grounded multiple boats." What's wrong with simplicity? :P
• "and another was run ashore" --> "and another ran ashore"

• Fixed, thanks!

• " In Newburgh, many houses were destroyed over due to the severity of the winds and ships needed to travel with sails lowered,[2] and meanwhile at New York Harbor, not a single craft docked due to the vigorous gale on 10 October" - please rewrite... split... reorganize...

• Done, whaddya think?

• "In Boston, strong winds, described as "unprecedented in the annals" of the city, were documented during the afternoon of 9 October, blowing off the steeple of the Old North Church, while the roof of the King's Chapel was tossed 200 feet (61 m) from its initial location, landing on an adjacent house and crushing two carriages into pieces." - split after "Old North Church"

• Yeppers, done.

• "poplar trees were uprooted, structures bent and crumpled, and many wharves ruined" - the last bit doesn't quite work. If you're going for parallelism, say "the storm [verb noun], [verb noun], and [verb noun]." As it stands, it's three different constructions in a row. First is "were uprooted", passive voice. The second is simple past tense "bent and crumbled". But the third doesn't work. Wharves can't simply ruin. There needs to be a direct object. Or, this entire bit needs to be rewritten.

• Changed to [verb noun] for parallel structure.

• "The Charlestown Navy Yard was to be dismantled" - why the "was to be"? It's like future tense but in the past... confusing

• Tense changed.

• "The steeple of the Old North Church, which was eventually repaired and restored several times, was blown down by once more in 1954 by Hurricane Carol and mended yet again" - why isn't this mentioned when you talk about the Old North Church?

• Euhm, fixed.

• I think you mention downed trees a bit too many times in "Southern New England" section. Only one of the five paragraphs doesn't mention it. Maybe reorganize?

• Reorganized; mostly in the second paragraph now, except for the parts in other states.

• "While little frozen precipitation fell in Massachusetts" - eh? You mentioned 18 inches of snow in the previous paragraph

• Clarified: the reports were isolated (i.e., mostly falling only in mountainous regions)

• Is there any need to use the word "propinquity" ever? :P

• Maybe "vicinity"? :P

• "it still produced disproportionate totals of frozen precipitation in the northeastern United States, which were mostly not exceeded until the 2011 Halloween nor'easter, which in areas received several feet of snowfall" - the bit of being exceeded only refers to October snow, not in general.

• Ring.

• "Similar circumstances occurred in 2012 with the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, which had a similar track to the 1804 snowstorm" - don't say "similar" twice

• Ding.

That's it! Just these minor things. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)