Talk:1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane

	1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane is part of the 1933 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 24, 2015 Good article nominee Listed March 17, 2016 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Link the season in the first sentence
• "The storm produced extensive damage and at least one drowning as it crossed the Bahamas. " - I feel like this is out of order. This should go before the Florida landfall sentence
• "While few ships encountered the small storm, it regained hurricane force on August 4" - the "while" suggests some sort of contrast in the sentence, but neither have anything to do with each other. Try something like "Few ships encountered the small storm as it regained hurricane force on August 4", or something
• Is the third paragraph of the lead appropriate for the lead? The lead is supposed so summarize what is below. Maybe create a paragraph under "meteorological history" for "legacy and records", or "historical context", or something? However, I am concerned that you are citing HURDAT. While the information may be technically true, we generally discourage information that isn't stated directly from HURDAT. See here and here.
• "becoming a tropical storm as it did so at 0000 UTC on July 25" - "as it did so" is redundant
• "60-mile-per-hour (97 km/h)" - how come it's written out? Previously, every instance was mph
• "75 mph (121 km/h)," - make sure both values are rounded
• For every UTC, you need to have a colon (12:00 UTC). During Cyclone Joy's FAC, we got some clarification on the issue from WP:MOSTIME.
• "Now hooking west-southwest, the storm quickly atrophied as it moved inland and vanished over easternmost Nuevo León by 1800 UTC." - given that you hadn't said the date for a few sentences, I think it would be helpful to clarify the date one last time
• "but caused only minimal damage there, and no deaths were initially confirmed.[14] Later reports, however, indicated more severe damage elsewhere in the islands and at least one death from drowning." - why is it important to mention the initial lack of deaths?
• "The state oversaw and supervised the evacuations for the first time in the area's history" - this is a pretty important claim. It was really the first time that the state supervised evacuations? Not during any of the 1920s storms?
• "but many others did not, fearing little damage from the weak storm." - I wouldn't say "fearing" is the right word here
• Given how the preparations are interspersed with the impact, have you considered splitting off the section? It would help break up the huge section better, and a lot of the preparations are similar.
• "and destroyed a structure at the former place" - if this is Stuart, you should say that again, as it was 25 words previous and it could be confusing
• "Shrubs and roofs in the city were damaged as well, but utilities were quickly revived as the worst of the storm passed." - utilities like power and water? If so, say that they were affected. Otherwise, it seems you're talking about shrubs and roofs being revived.
• "Despite precautions, little immediate damage from wind and rain resulted in the Everglades and near Lake Okeechobee." - why the "despite"?
• "dead fronds from palms" - maybe link "frond"? I didn't know what it was
• "clocked 40-mile-per-hour (64 km/h) winds around 1445 UTC on July 31" - why did you spell it out again?
• [1] - here is a bit more info for Texas.

All in all, the article is very well done. It feels like a very thorough and detailed account of the storm. Most of my comments are fairly nitpicky stuff - ordinarily I wouldn't do it for a GA review, but you indicated you were interested in A-class or FAC, so I went ahead and reviewed if it was an FAC. I very much appreciate your work on historic Florida hurricanes, it isn't unnoticed at all! If you have any questions, let me know, but I think the above should be easy to fix. Great work again! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing missing is the info from that last link I posted. It provides a Texas damage total and winds in Texas. Otherwise, everything looks good! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]