Talk:Hurricane Dot (1959)

Todo
Nice work. I'm not sure how much more there is out there, hence the start class, but not much more is needed for B class. Hurricanehink 02:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've put the bit about rainfall on Oahu up at DYK. NSL E (T+C) at 02:08 UTC (2006-03-31)

I think the intro is too long for the length of the article - and too detailed in general (we don't need to know the exact location where the storm was first spotted). Some of this should be moved into the storm history and the length reduced to 2 paragraphs. — jdorje (talk) 02:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement "Despite the ferocity of the storm" might be too strong for a Cat 1 hurricane. Otherwise I think its an interesting article. Royalbroil 05:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh... it was a Category 4, not Cat 1. Only Cat 1 at landfall. NSL E (T+C) at 06:52 UTC (2006-03-31)


 * Be sure to work in the fact it was a Cat. 4 in the storm history. Currently there's no mention. Hurricanehink 12:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I dropped it to start due to the fact it is fairly short. It should be expanded using the newspaper archive. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Money units
It's important that monetary figures include modern-day units accompanying them, as in "$6 million ($38 million in 2005 USD)". This is pretty much equivalent to including mph and km/h units side-by-side. However in some places (like in the last paragraph of the impact) that include lots of damage figures, this can get a bit tediously long. Is there something we can do about it (in general, not specifically in this article)? — jdorje (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Importance
I have upped the importance of this storm to mid-importance, per the CPHC summaries, which lists Dot as a "notable Hawaiian hurricane". – Chacor 07:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Have upped it to B-class as well, based on Coredesat's comments at the WPTC assessment page. – Chacor 05:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Failure
I am failing this because, while it's certainly a nice article, it just strikes me as being less comprehensive than it could be. It's a good start. But Good Articles need to be more than a good start.

I do understand that data here is kind of thin as we're talking a hurricane which didn't quite hit Hawaii almost a half-century ago. But more research could be done. There's got to be newspaper archives somewhere, the Honolulu Advertiser maybe, which could be looked up and cited to give a better idea of how Hawaii reacted to the storm and its aftermath. I strongly suggest you get this involved with WikiProject Hawaii. We need better history.

Also, the infobox picture needs to have the sea lightened. Frankly, with that blue as dark as it is I was about to wipe the dust over the storm track off my monitor when I realized it was Hawaii.

Good luck and, as usual, no prejudice against renomination. Daniel Case 01:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)