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.
Good work Storm05! You've progressed amazingly over the past few months. Some things on the todo list include a longer intro, split up/longer storm history, and word/grammar improvements throughout the article. If possible, could the impact be broken up section by section? Are you sure that damage total is in 1999 USD? It could be 1999 Canadian Dollars, which would result in a lower total. More pictures would be nice. Also, as a tidbit, you could mention that Gert was one of five Category 4 hurricanes during the season, a record currently tied with the 2005 season. Definetly B-class material. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the trivia. Dont know about the damage total, I guessed that it maybe in USD although the NHC did not record that damage total. Storm0514:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically (it is ironic given that usually you ask me to do this), I think you should write a better opening sentence. It has become fairly common that TC articles don't start no longer open with "Hurricane Y was the Xth tropical cyclone, Xth named storm, and Xth hurricane of the xxxx Atlantic hurricane season". In addition, it doesn't make the storm sound interesting, I mean, there are probably lots of storm that were the "seventh named storm and the fourth major hurricane" of the season. Personally, I would re-write that to "Hurricane Gert was the fourth Category 4 hurricane of the 1999 Atlantic hurricane season".
Overall, I think the lead is too short; it could easily be lengthened with more meteorological details and impact info.
"Satellite intensity estimates reached as high as 160 mph (260 km/h), or a Category 5 hurricane." - Why did NHC not upgraded Gert to a Cat. 5? Was it because Hurricane Hunter/reconnaissance could not confirm this? BTW, the TCR, which is used to cite this, does not include this information.
"seas in the area generally ran 3 to 5 ft (0.91 to 1.5 m)." - That seems awkward, IMO, mostly because to me it sounds like the seas were involved in the physical activity of running. I would reword to "seas in the area were generally between 3 and 5 ft (0.91 to 1.5 m)."
You are missing just a little bit of information about impact in St. John's; quoting directly from EC: "Damage was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range in St. John’s", and "Flights cancelled to and from St. John’s" is what should be added (though obviously you want to reword to avoid plagiarism).
Why is there no publisher for reference #1.
The author of reference #17 is "Lawrence, et al.", when it should be "Miles B. Lawrence".
Reference #20 is a deadlink.
Alright, I changed the first sentence, expanded the lede, added the missing word with regards to the running seas, and added publisher for #1. The article doesn't say that all satellite estimates were C5, just that they reached that high, which would explain why it wasn't upgraded all the way. It does appear in the TCR (in the images section). The article already mentions the impacted flights. As for the damage, I didn't feel a need to add it, since there is no specific figure. It's not even in the millions, so it's pretty small. Ref #17 has multiple authors, so this is the appropriate way of doing it. And finally, ref #20 works fine for me. Thanks for reviewing! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough info to make the lead as long, if not longer, than the lead of Tropical Storm Harvey. I would separate the impact from the MH info in the lead so it would be easier to split into two paragraphs.--12george1 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Harvey did affect land a lot more than Gert, and I didn't want to bore the readers too much with MH info. However, I did expand it a bit per your suggestion, and I think it works better now with two paragraphs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
