Talk:Hurricane Gabrielle (1989)

Todo
Fix the typos and poor writing in places - could probably use an outside copyedit. All in all, good job with such a storm. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, i think its ready for B-Class. Storm05 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost, but not quite. First, is there a better image for the infobox? What about the program that has the good images for this time period - have you asked Good Kitty or anyone else with the program? The lede could be a bit longer. The storm history needs some re-organization. The first sentence is a bit of a run-on, and the problems continue from there. What is more important; that satellite imagery showed well-defined outflow or that the storm had well-defined outflow? Why did it rapidly intensify into a hurricane? Was it due to warm water temperatures? Light vertical shear? The structure of the storm history is messy as well. Why is there one paragraph of 5 lines, followed by three two line paragraphs, then one eight line paragraph and finally a 3 line paragraph? Is there a way it can be more even? "...which had already reached category 4 status at that point." Was it Felix or Gabrielle that reached Cat. 4 status? How gradual or not was the intensification? When did the eye form? The quote - "Gabrielle may have reached its peak intensity, but its too early to tell" - is confusing. Did it intensify further after the quote or not? Further more, is it needed? Why did it turn westward late in its life and nearly stall? You can't attribute that just due to the jet stream? Another main problem in the storm history is the units; when the first unit is rounded the second should be as well. Be sure to keep the same tense throughout the article. Is the prediction "In Jamaica, although Gabrielle was not forecast to hit the island, a missionary traveling across the island told residents about a prophecy that Jamaica will face doom and suggested that the disaster might be ether Hurricane Gabrielle or another hurricane in the near future." really necessary? It seems pointless, given that the prediction was extremely unofficial and not notable. Not a bad image in the impact section; it's a bit different, but how do you know it is this Gabrielle? It could have been 95's or 2001's. Try and get proof. How many deaths did the storm cause? The infobox says 8, but the impact suggests 9 (8 in US and 1 in Canada). All in all, not too bad. Needs a copyedit, though. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive fixed the paragraphs and clarifed the impact and lede in the article. Storm05 19:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still 3 typos that need to be fixed. Can you come up with a better first sentence? Wikilinking should be improved (there are links to both tropical depression and tropical storm, both of which redirect to tropical cyclone, while some other fairly important terms like ridge is missing wikilinks). Also, wikilinking Gabrielle should go to Gabrielle, not the season article. The first sentence is a run-on. Unit consistency is needed; currently, imperial units are rounded to the nearest 0 or 5, while metric units are not. Some places do not make much sense, and the whole article could use another run-through. For example, the third sentence of the storm history is incorrect; it implies that satellite imagery directly told the NHC to upgrade to upgrade it to a tropical storm. It's a word choice error, though it isn't very professional. It's getting close to B class, though not quite. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * fixed the errors. Storm05 13:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't fix all of the errors. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture
That picture in the begining of the impact section is terrible, and I could not even tell what it was of at first. Is there any other picture to use in this article? Juliancolton 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly likely not for the impact section. Given the time period, that'd probably be the best available, and if you read the caption I wouldn't say that the image was terrible. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not terrible, just a little blury. Juliancolton 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you said the picture was terrible. What would you rather be used instead? Free images of any impact is very unlikely, since free damage images in general are rare to come by. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am looking through NOAA's archive, but i found nothing. Please excuse my exssesive complaints. Juliancolton 14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)