Talk:Hurricane Diane

Hurricane Diane is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Hurricane Diane is part of the 1955 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 7, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 19, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
April 21, 2013	Good topic candidate	Promoted
September 9, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 7, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

United States: Delaware / North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Delaware portal This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Mid-importance).
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Mid-importance).

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Todo[edit]

Close to a B, needs expanding a bit. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 02:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Seeing as this was the costliest hurricane in history at the time, we should have pretty high standards for it. — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading a book about Diane's flooding in the late fifties. I think it was a mass-market paperback. It might be a good source. Btw, see also docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/hurricanes/QC9452D53H81955b.pdf, a NOAA preliminary report on Diane written a few days after the storm.C. Cerf (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - pre FAC. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?[edit]

Should Flood of 1955 (Connecticut) be merged, given most of that content will appear in this article, or should it be kept as a stub sub-article? (and perhaps retitled to Effects of Hurricane Diane in Connecticut. I'm not done my research yet for this article, but I figured I'd bring it up. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It depends if the damage between the two hurricanes can be differentiated or not. If it's impossible to tell which hurricane did what, then I'd say keep it as a sub-article of both storms. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The floods mostly only were the result of Diane. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then merge it into this article for now. If the section becomes huge, then create an "Effects of Hurricane Diane in Connecticut" article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Diane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 01:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be taking this review. I will use the template below to assess the article against the criteria. If there are any issues please let me know here or at my talk page. Thanks! ★★Retro Lord ★★ 01:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have done a quick readthrough, no major problems that I can foresee, the review will probably be just copyediting and making sure everything is referenced. ★★Retro Lord ★★ 01:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing such a long article :) I'm sure old hurricanes aren't everyone's cup of tea, but it's great to get a reviewer. I replied to everything below. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anything else have to be done? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again!! :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark your edits on the review as either Done or Not done for both our convenience.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The name Diane was retired and will never be used by an Atlantic hurricane again." Could we make this more concise? It gives the impression the hurricane gets to choose it's own name, rather than it being assigned. Done I shortened. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "the damage from Diane would be about $7.4 billion, or the 17th costliest United States hurricane." Maybe change to "making it the 17th costliest"? Done Tweaked (not exactly to what you said, but changed). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Throughout the northeastern United States, the floods from Diane set a benchmark for future rainfall in the region." What does this mean? Was the rainfall a record, whhat do you mean by a benchmark? Done I didn't like it, so I removed it. Basically, it previously meant that future rainfall was compared to Diane's record rainfall, but it's not all that important. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "washed out lines" Could you please rewrite as it is a bit unclear Done Added lines. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Using a monetary deflator as of 2010, the damage from Diane would be about $7.4 billion, or the 17th costliest United States hurricane. Accounting for inflation, changes in personal wealth, and population changes, it is estimated Diane would have caused $18 billion in damage in 2010, or the 15th highest United States hurricane." This section is a bit confusing. Could you rewrite to make it mpore clear please? I tweaked it a little bit by confirming earlier that it's about currency. It's some statistical stuff about how costly Diane would be nowadays, and it gives two metrics for assessing that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "The Quinebaug River flooded the city of Putnam at the same time a major fire was occurring;[16] large explosions occurred there at a magnesium plant." Could you rewrite to make this clearer? Done Merged clauses. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "The intensification was so quick that ship southeast" Possible spelling mistake on ship? Done Added "a" --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Damage totaled about $754.7 million (1955 USD)[nb 2], although the inclusion of loss of business and personal review increased the total to over $1 billion." Could you rewrite this to make it a bit clearer? Done Ack, I meant revenue. I must've been drunk when I wrote that :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "The Horseshoe Dam was washed out" What does this mean? Dams can get washed out, as in destroyed. Would you prefer I say destroyed? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] It's fine, was just clarifying the meaning. Done "Record high rides were also reported." I'm not sure what "rides" is refferring to here, could you have a look at this please Done Typo (for tides). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "there was three death" Possible spelling mistake? Done Brain fart :/ At 56 kb or so, my brain got a little fried here and there (just like with revenue/revenue, ugh). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "a 1 in 50–75 year event." This doesn't flow very well, is it possible to rewrite this? Done Removed the 75, and said "at least". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Are all of the $figures in the same format? It says in the last part of the lead that "Damage totaled about $754.7 million (1955 USD)" but before that does not indicate the year of the USD used. Crap, I usually add this. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "Throughout Pennsylvania, 101 people were killed, and damage was estimated at $70 million." Is this bit in the 1955 or in 2013$? Do you think we should move the (1955 USD) bit to that figure as it is the first one in the article? Done Good call! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] "987 millibars (29.1 inHg)" I'm not overly confident with these units, but is this following the same imperial (metric) format as the rest of the article? Actually, this one is the more scientific one first then the alternative one. Not quote imperial and metric, but this is how we do it in every hurricane article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I am quite impressed with your use of the old newspapers as sources, good research. Thanks! I used a combination of newspapers, books, and government documents. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most of the info in the lead appears to be referenced, but I could not find any reference for this bit " On August 19, Diane emerged into the Atlantic Ocean southeast of New York City, and became extratropical the next day, dissipating on August 21." It's at the end of the met history - "exiting New Jersey on August 19 into the Atlantic Ocean southeast of New York City." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Detail is quite comprehensive, well done!
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pending
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Is this source correct?[edit]

I'm translating this article to Chinese, found a little problem about the source.

References 24:

David M. Roth (2013-03-06). Tropical Cyclone Rainfall in the Mid– Atlantic (Report). Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. Retrieved 2013-08-03.

But this link is exactly the same as reference 23:

David M. Roth (2012-11-17). Tropical Cyclone Rainfall for the Southeast (Report). Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. Retrieved 2013-02-03.

Both link are the same, so is this correct? I try to search this title: "Tropical Cyclone Rainfall in the Mid– Atlantic", found this link: http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcmidatl.html, with the information "Big Meadows, VA" "11.72" "Diane", so I guess should be this link right?--Jarodalien (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, oops, yep you're right! Thanks :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Diane. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Diane. 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/20120321225853/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/nerfc/historical/aug1955.htm to http://www.erh.noaa.gov/nerfc/historical/aug1955.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Diane. 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/20130801162008/http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/hurdat2-atlantic-1851-2012-060513.txt to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/hurdat/hurdat2-atlantic-1851-2012-060513.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Diane. 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/20140712205408/http://www.cslib.org/flood1955.htm to http://www.cslib.org/flood1955.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damages[edit]

@Hurricanehink: Can you please double check the damages cited for Diane. When writing this article you cited HURRICANES OF 1955 which states:

"As Diane moved inland and continued northward, the damage figures began to mount. Damage has been estimated at $754,706,000 of which $600,000,000 occurred in New England. These figures are admittedly incomplete and direct plus indirect damage would indicate that Diane earned the appelation of "the first billion-dollar hurricane."

However, the List of retired Atlantic hurricane names currently cites The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones from 2005 which claims that the damage total was $831 million. This total also appears in previous editions of The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones as early as 1978 and feels more reliable.Jason Rees (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]