Talk:1935 Jérémie hurricane

Comment
In the article about 1935 Jérémie hurricane is stated that "The flood left 800 families homeless in Chamelecón,[23] where the Ulúa River rose some 50 ft (15 m) from its normal height". The problem is that Chamelecón is a zone near San Pedro Sula and the only river near the Chamelecón area is the Chamelecón river and not the Ulúa river as the article states. The Ulúa river is about 40 km away from Chamelecón. You can consult any map of San Pedro Sula to check this. Thank you for your time. [Comment made by, elsewhere; moved by me. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)]
 * Thanks for moving that here Drmies. The source says this: "The river Ulua innundated the towns of Chamelecon, Choloma, and Progreso. It was officially reported that the river rose 50 feet in Chamelecon." I just checked a map and the Ulua appears to be about 10 miles from Chamelecon, though it does run on the west side of El Progreso and relatively close to Choloma. It could be that in the remote countryside of 1935 Honduras, the towns were sprawling and lacked any real boundaries, or that Chemelecon was the most identifiable spot at the time, so the observer picked the nearest significant town. Maybe something got lost in translation, like "a river in the Ulua drainage basin" somehow turned into "the Ulua River" in print. Not quite sure how to deal with this. Richard the strong king, thoughts? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's possible that it was a tributary of the Ulua. Can't the original source be looked at again?♦ Dr. Blofeld
 * Well here's the relevant part of the newspaper article. I checked the archive I was using again, and it's the only source that mentions the 50 ft figure for the Ulua, though several other sources say the river flooded Chamelecon. shrug –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

&larr; Well, I've reworked the offending sentence to make fewer definitive statements, while still agreeing with the source. It's possibly a bit weaselly now, but I'd rather leave readers to draw their own conclusions than force questionable info down their throats. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A-class discussion
It appears the article is close to A-class. Here are some comments that I thought could help along its way.


 * "was an abnormal and highly destructive tropical cyclone" - something about that doesn't ring well to me. I'd avoid the "abnormal" part, since that's kinda subjective, and you explain later why it was abnormal.
 * "the storm would proceed" - why the "would"? It'd be better if it remained in active past tense, so - "the storm proceeded"
 * "fruit growers on the island sustained about $2.5 million in losses" - we usually specify in the lead what year's currency we use. I notice you don't do it in the article.
 * "Four people died on the country" - "on" or "in"?
 * "The depression drifted toward the east, turning north-northeastward as it strengthened into a tropical storm." - when"?
 * "The system brushed Cuba's Cape Cruz and deteriorating" - this should be "deteriorated" per paralleism
 * "The cyclone likely dissipated on October 27." - where?
 * "and Saint Thomas, Portland, and Saint Mary parishes" - your call, but I think "the parishes of Saint Thomas..." has a better ring to it to identify them all as parishes
 * "limiting the receipt of information" - ehh, interesting wordage here, but I'm not sure it works best. It's a little... odd
 * I didn't change this, as it's valid wording, and I don't think we should necessarily be scared of colorful language. I'll change it if I have to, but I'm kind of proud of how creative I was. :) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The flood left 800 families homeless in Chamelecón." - how come this sentence appears between two sentences that specify the flood depth?
 * "as observed about 140 mi (230 km) upstream of its mouth" - not sure if "of" or "from" its mouth is best
 * As I see it, if you substituted "upstream" for, say, "northeast", it would be correct to use of. It's being used more as a directional point of reference than a hydrological term. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are redlink categories

All in all, good writing, a good read! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything else is done. Thanks for taking the time to read and comment! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support then! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)
 * "There were reports of": I'll defer to you on this, but at MilHist we like to limit "there were reports of" to cases where we're suggesting that we're not sure if the reports were true ... if we actually believe the reports, we just say what they said. WP:WORDS discusses this IIRC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I copyedited the article per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Great job. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Comments
 * Why are you using Easy Hurdat as opposed to HURDAT itself.Jason Rees (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To what is a subscription required? - please add |via=Newspapers.com to each of the references.Jason Rees (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of the death/damage totals by country table being cited, by the | colspan = 9 | Sources cited in text. sicne that doesnt make it obvious where the totals come from and can be easily removed accidentally.Jason Rees (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)