Talk:1991 Perfect Storm

Minnesota Storm

The Minnesota record blizzard, I believe, was a completely SEPARATE storm that just occured at the same time as the no'reaster did. # The sattelite image confirms this.

Wave height

Whoa! Someone missread something here. That buoy reading measured a wave height of 31 meters, not 31 feet. 31 meters comes out to a grand total of over 100 feet! Near the eye, waves of over 50 feet were commonly reported. 30-foot waves were the ones crashing onto the shore of Cape Cod...several hundred miles away from the eyewall.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

Source? Jdorje 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A documentary called Storm of the Century. A woman who was on the freighter called the Eishen Maru at the height of the storm reported the reading from a buoy managed by the Canadien Coast Guard in an interview. Quote: "...but I do know that the wave buoy marker off of Sable Island registered a 30-meter wave. That is 100 feet. 90-100 feet. Can you imagine? A ten story building falling on your head? That's how big the buoy marker registered..." It's a fascinating interview. She talks about how 50 foot waves were crashing over her boat regularly. Some were so high that they broke the windows on the bridge, which was probably as much as 70-80 feet above the waterline. It should be at least added that she reported this going on, even if the exact numerical estimates are not confirmed confirmed. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly stated data blocks for the Bouys

The information provided in the aricle on Bouy 44011: NOAA buoy 44011 located at 41.1° N, 66.6° W reported maximum sustained winds of 49 knots (91 km/h) with gusts to 65 kt (120 km/h) and a significant wave height of 39 feet (12 m) near 15:00 UTC. is mistaken. If you look at the real historical data that NOAA provides on Bouy 44011, this does not match up. On October 30th, 1991 at 1500 UTC, NOAA reports that Bouy 44011 recorded wind from 030 at 25.1knots, gusting to 33.6knots. Wave hight was recorded at 11.60 meters, with a Dominant wave period of 20 seconds, and an average wave period of 10.80 seconds. Atmospheric pressure was recorded at 1000.3Millibars. Air Temperature was recorded at 09.4 degrees Celcius, and water surface temperature was recorded at 13.4 degrees Celcius. A look at NOAA's offical specific historical wave data for bouy 44011 shows that at 1450UTC, the Ten-minute average wind speed was 24.4knots and the Maximum 5-second peak gust during the measurement hour (reported at the last hourly 10-minute segment) was 33.6knots. --Brian ^{(How am I doing?)} 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Movie/Book?

This article seems to be less about the movie/book, and more about the actual hurricane. Just my two cents. QuillOmega0 06:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. IMO, the article should be split. The actual storm should have the title The Perfect Storm, while the movie/book can have separate articles (Perfect Storm (Book) and Perfect Storm (Movie)). Hurricanehink 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the actual storm should be given its official name: 1991 Halloween Nor’easter. Jdorje 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, with a proper header at the top. I vote yes. Hurricanehink 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved it. Hurricanehink 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

Too-long intro, bad article organization. Jdorje 21:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This should be fixed, finally. Thegreatdr 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Problems

The current article gives too much weight to the hurricane. The hurricane was just at tiny part of the storm. — jdorje (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This was a complicated event. The vigorous low near Sable Island was literally sucking the life out of Hurricane Grace. When the front hits, the thing becomes just this huge white mass on the satellite imagery #. You clearly see Hurricane Grace east of the Carolinas. The front is that strip of overcast along the US east coast extending into the low that's feeding off this all-you-can-eat buffet of energy. But just look at that huge, white mass south of Newfoundland. Winds in that low are below hurricane force, but the seas are like that of a strong Category 4 hurricane: 80-90 feet! A buoy near Sable Island measured a wave 111 feet high! To my knowledge, that's an Atlantic record. I'm still not sure if the NHC measured the winds right. The low was the heart of this event. It, Grace, the front and their roles should be described here. It was this collision of beasts that killed 12 people. The tropical hurricane itself didn't do too much. I still am dying to know that if the winds were so low, why the waves were so high. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 06:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This is really two articles in one. The hurricane alone is not even close to worthy of an article, but everything else definitely is and it all goes hand-in-hand... CrazyC83 02:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is lacking one big point: the pressure gradient. This storm had one of the lowest millibars per mph of wind speed ratios ever recorded in the Atlantic. At one point, while extratropical and near the time of the Andrea Gail's demise, the storm had a wind speed of 70 mph but had a pressure of 972 mb! 972 is normally the pressure associated with a Category 2 hurricane! The pressure of an average storm with winds of 70 mph is around 990. That's an 18 mb difference. That means that, at that time, the Perfect Storm had a pressure nearly 20 mb lower than normal. That's insane. Just for comparison, Hurricane Wilma also had a very low pressure gradient, possibly the lowest ever. The greatest difference reported in Wilma was during the rapid intensification; 20 mb. That kind of difference may have been the cause of some of those biblical wave sizes reported, even thought the winds weren't very high. That may also be why we haven't seen the record of 110 feet equaled by any other Atlantic storm on record. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 00:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Extratropical cyclones have broader wind fields than tropical cyclones. There is no merit to this argument since it was not a tropical cyclone at peak intensity. Unless you know of an archive of extratropical cyclones and their effects, I'd be careful about stating that certain measurements are records unless they are supported by a citation. Thegreatdr 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the box at the top to cyclone from hurricane. NHC did not name this system in real-time to eliminate public confusion as to whether the extratropical phase or the tropical phase of the cyclone caused the main damage. We need to change the satellite image that shows the system at "maximum intensity" to when the cyclone was extratropical, since it had a lower pressure during its initial extratropical phase. Even with its picture, the cyclone article is weighted too much towards the late, short lived, tropical portion. I'm thinking of slapping a POV tag on the article. Thegreatdr 20:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The NHC archive said the extratropical phase peaked at 1200Z October 30, so this image [1] is very close to it. (Yes, there is some Photoshop trickery highlighting the coastline and the clouds.) I put the new hurricane image in the infobox anyway, but feel free to switch them. I am also considering rotating the hurricane pic anyway, because that and this one [2] aren't alligned with the other satellite images. It would mean that I would have to crop off a lot, however. Good kitty 20:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

PJs

The man from ANG who died was a PJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.9.46 (talk) 10:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed my edit on 20 June 2011 was reverted. I had cited the name of the deceased ANG jumper, Sgt. Millard Jones. The reason given for the reversion was that "Wikipedia doesn't use exact names for natural disaster deaths". A link to a guidelines section titled "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social network, or memorial site" was provided. I see nothing in that section that confirms the reason given for the reversion, either explicitly or implicitly. That guidelines section appears intended to dissuade the creation of entire pages dedicated to persons without regard to prominence. The guidelines section further references Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. Again, those guidelines are specifically related to entire pages and articles, especially biographies. The first two paragraphs of the Notability Guidelines are crystal clear on this.

I would be perfectly willing accept the reversion were it founded on a specific section of the Wikipedia guidelines. Such founding does not exist in the guidelines provided, making it appear that the reverter (HurricaneHink), while obviously a longtime and respected moderator of storm-related content on this site, made an arbitrary and capricious edit. (As I appreciate his many contributions, I don't really believe that's the case, but it does appear that way.) Mentioning the name of an Air National Guardsman who perished in The Perfect Storm isn't creating a memorial for him. Considering he was the only member of the US military to lose his life in the line of duty during that storm, I believe that makes him notable -- not for a page dedicated to him, but certainly within the context of an article covering the storm in its entirety.

Sheepdog69 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

De-linking names

I've de-linked the names of Walter Drag, Senior Forecaster at the Boston National Weather Service and NWS Boston Deputy Meteorologist Robert Case, as I think it's unlikely that Wikipedia is ever going to create separate articles on them. If I turn out to be wrong, we can always re-link later. -- 201.78.193.119 11:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Unusual" or "Unique"?

The start of the article here calls the storm "unusual." I thought the claim to fame of the storm - as famously stated by the movie's advertisements and by several news outlets in 1991 - was that the storm was "unique" in recorded history. I don't have the book with me, but I recall that Sebastian Junger's book claims that meteorologically - conditions and the odds of the three storms combining were so great - the storms conditions could not have been any worse. Hence, the term "perfect storm." If any of that is true, and if it really was a storm of such scale that it was unique in recorded - or something even close to that - then the adjective "unusual" just seems a bit weak to me. -- S. Harrison, Oct. 12, 2006

• • Good point. "Unusual" and "very powerful" just seems a bit weak. Those are words we could use to describe many storms. The storm we're talking about here was singular - as far as recorded storm systems go - in many respects.

If you can find a source calling the cyclone a singular event, throw it in the article. Otherwise, many cyclones in the 970's are spawned in the North Atlantic annually. There are probably others which looped back towards New England over the decades/centuries, but as a group we're just too young to remember or know any better. Thegreatdr 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Impact section needs revision

In the first paragraph of the "Impact" section: "The worst of the storm stayed offshore (a sailing vessel, the Satori, was piloted by a novice and nearly foundered during the storm)."

First off, the section in parenthesis has nothing to do with the sentence it's included in. It has nothing to do with the storm staying offshore. Had the storm gone inland, the Satori still might have nearly foundered.

Secondly, Ray Leonard, the owner and skipper of the Satori, was anything but a novice; he had been sailing his own boats since 1965 and had been on the Satori in weather nearly as heavy before. The section in parenthesis has been disputed by Ray Leonard, the owner of the Satori, who was never interviewed before the book's publishing. This is indicated in the paperback version of The Perfect Storm, in which Leonard gives his own version of events. Here's another source. Note that the Satori was recovered, having sustained minimal damage, on a Maryland beach.

IMO, the reference to the Satori ought to be deleted entirely; it's nearly entirely factually inaccurate, and without being included in a list of boats that sustained damage or went down it does little (if anything) to illustrate the impact of the storm. If the owner's version is true, the story of the Satori serves only to illustrate how big storms at sea can make people (the crew, in Leonard's account) panic. If Junger's version is true, the story of the Satori illustrates pretty much the same point, aimed at the skipper rather than the crew.--Celticshel 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Precipitation image on bottom of page has to go

...not because it shows an improper amount, but because it doesn't show the correct storm track. Compare the storm track of this cyclone to that of Grace, shown on that image, and you'll see the problem. Grace was the source of the storm's moisture for a day or two, but that was before its precipitation impact on the United States and Canada. Thegreatdr 13:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Bad Article Organisation

Though this article does state some good facts about the "Perfect" Storm, there are several problems with it in my opinion.

1) The picture in the infobox shows "the Nor'easter at peak intensity on November 1st". That is actually a picture of the weak unnamed hurricane that formed late in the storm, which is not the Nor'easter. The peak intensity of the Nor'easter was on October 30th, when the pressure was 972 mbar, even though the wind was only 70mph.

2) The minimum pressure in the infobox shows 980 mbar. The minimum pressure was 972 mbar (while the system was extratropical). It should have 2 separate pressures, one for extratropical and one for tropical.

3) There were some 100 foot waves recorded by buoys. Canadian buoy #44137 recorded 100 foot waves on the evening/night of October 29th (Sebastian Junger says this in his book "The Perfect Storm"). Even NOAA admit this, as in this link [3] it says "creating waves ten stories high".

I don't mean to be picky, but to someone who has never read about the storm before this could be quite confusing. The article seems to focus more on the unnamed hurricane rather than the Nor'easter. HurricanesTyphoonsCyclones 19:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an interesting problem. The article was created by a member of the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, and at the time it was treated as a hurricane article since no Meteorology Wikiproject existed then. Given the historical nature of the system, both regarding the Nor'easter and the unusual hurricane that followed it, there could be room for two articles, which would definitely make things easier. After all, it was the Nor'easter that caused the damage and waves. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I strongly propose a merger from Perfect storm as both articles talk about the excact same thing and almost everyting on the page Perfect storm is here on this page. See Wp:merge for why I am proposing this. There's really no need for 2 pages with the excact same context. I am sure you guys here should agree with this. IF not please give detailed reason. Remember redirects can be made. Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 13:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not totally agree with this proposal. IMO, the article Perfect storm is really a definition of the term Perfect Storm, rather than anything about the actual 1991 storm. It is certainly not redundant or unnecessary in my opinion. However, there does seem to be too much information on the actual storm, which I think should be removed and put into this article. HurricanesTyphoonsCyclones 15:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So what your saying is that it sohuld be a partial merger. I do believe that 90% of the page is already here preaty much which is why I decided to propose this one. The stuff left over would make the article a stub and I think it would be better off having it a part of this article. I also feel the redirect if and when created should point to Perfect storm (disambiguation). Now do you have any ideas on what to do with the first paragrah of the page there? Sawblade05 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 16:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I also feel we are better served by having two articles. I came here after hearing over and over the phrase "perfect storm", which has taken on a meaning far beyond that of the 1991 storm. If there's going to be a merger (and, again, I do not support it), move this article into the perfect storm page, not the other way around. CsikosLo (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm minorly in favor of a merger as the current perfect storm article contributes little and is hardly deserving of a separate article; explaining how the term came into common use would fit handily into the aftermath section of this article. I will point out however that this article is correctly named (there has been great discussion on this point in the past) and should not be renamed. — jdorje (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and on the topic of how the perfect storm article contributes little: aside from defining the term (wikipedia is WP:NOT a dictionary), its only encyclopedic content is giving the origin of the term which is simply a link to this article. — jdorje (talk) 09:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming down against the merger, but agree with merging the weather part to another page: the change would improve both articles. Like ScikosLo, I came looking for a reference to the term, so I could link to it in emails and on web pages. The term has taken on a life of its own. People use the term who have no interest whatsoever in meteorology. Thanks, Woodlandpath (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree to merger. As ScikosLo and Woodlandpath also stated, the expression "perfect storm" has come to mean more than just the 1991 storm, 1997 book, or 2000 movie. It now can mean any event where a combination of circumstances will exacerbate a situation drastically. So instead of merging, the perfect storm article should expand on this. -- P199 (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Name

I grew up and still live on the coast of Massachusetts, and I remember this storm well. In conversation every local refers to this storm as the "No-Name Storm." I propose adding that as one of the names in the article, though I do not propose changing the article's title. Can anybody else from Massachusetts confirm that this is the local name for the storm? And if so, can we get a consensus on making the edit? Rudy Breteler (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

People were calling the system in the Gulf of Mexico last month the no-name storm as well. Although it is a generic name, if there are any web hits on it, it could be included in the first line. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

---

1991 Halloween Nor'easter → 1991 Perfect Storm — Far more well-known by the proposed name. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support: Rename as per suggestion. It would seem that "Perfect Storm" is the more common name for this storm. It is even the title of a book about the storm: The Perfect Storm. The current name is a localised New England term for the storm. Woollymammoth (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes:

• [TYPE HERE]

cool. --24.108.140.237 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Request declined. No specific fix requested. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I feel that the existence of the 1991 Unnamed Hurricane article is redundant. Three quarters of the meteorological history discusses the system before it became a tropical system, there were no actual effects from this hurricane. Having two articles simply reduces the effectiveness. Most articles link to the perfect storm article and most of the link to the hurricane article are simply template links. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 13:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%, and I was against the existence of the other article from the beginning. The fact of the matter is that they were the same cyclone. Both articles use the storm path! --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this one too. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 23:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Storm path" figure useless

This figure conveys zero information as it stands, due to the lack of any labeling about time interval, or which direction it was moving, or the meaning of the colors (can be guessed from the figure file, maybe) or the meaning of the shapes of the symbols. Anyone who knows could easily put much of this into the caption. If no one does, the figure should be dropped (commented out?) -- it just says "it wandered around in the Western Atlantic off the east US / Canada coasts", which does not merit a figure. Wwheaton (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/meds/Databases/WAVE/ArchPlot/ArchPlot_Form_e.asp
  • In 1991 Perfect Storm on 2011-05-25 05:56:35, 404 Not Found
  • In 1991 Perfect Storm on 2011-06-08 00:43:58, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1991 Perfect Storm/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello again! I'll take on the review for this article in a sec. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 01:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 1

Lead

• "within an extratropical system" - Like, a storm system?
  • Yea, I changed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Wikilink "ridge" to "Ridge (meteorology)".
  • I did once it was used in the MH. I didn't want to overlink the lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "It later received the name the Perfect Storm after" - Should "the Perfect Storm" be surrounded by quotations?
• Should you wikilink "Nova Scotia"? (The one to which I refer is in the last sentence of the top paragraph)
  • I like it! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "The tropical system weakened" - Isn't it extratropical?
  • No, it transitioned, per "the system evolved into a full-fledged hurricane". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• To clarify, can you include the H.W. in the George Bush wikilink?
  • I can do that. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "book and later movie The Perfect Storm." - Two things: firstly, is it possible to individually link to the movie and to the book? Secondly, you should italicize The Perfect Storm.
  • OK, good call. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Offshore New York" --> Off the shore of New York.
  • Ehh, I disagree. It works fine now with fewer words. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• In the above comment, also clarify if it is the state or city.
  • I changed it to Long Island to clarify. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "and although four member of its crew" - four members of its crew :P
  • I had to read that two times before I realized my numbering errorz. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "High waves swept a person to their death in Rhode Island and Puerto Rico" - in Rhode Island and Puerto Rico each?
  • Yep. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• You should specify that the man on the bridge died too.
  • Sure. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "little impact, limited to power outages" - little impact, and was limited to power outages"
  • K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Should "Newfoundland" be wikilinked?
  • Nah, I avoided linking all of the locations in the lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• It might be more accurate to say that the fifth helicopter guy remained missing instead of that he was killed.
  • Well, that implies he is still missing. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Meteorological history

• If you wikilink "ridge" in the lead, the wikilink in this section is unnecessary.
  • See above (I didn't). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "was executing a counter-clockwise loop" - What does this mean? (Not a GA concern, just I never really fully understood)
  • I changed "executing" to "moving in". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "a NOAA located at" - a NOAA buoy (?) located at
  • Oops. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Can you wikilink "warm-core center"?
  • Done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Warnings and preparations

• Can you specify that Dare County is in North Carolina? It isn't really clear from the text where it is.
  • OK, I thought all of the NC talk made it clear, but no prob. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Later, ferry service between Nova Scotia" - When you say later, can you find how long the delay was until the service was canceled?
  • It was actually earlier, so I made the writing simpler. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotations

• Can you merge this section with another one? I don't really see why it has to exist.
  • I converted it to a quote box. I like the quote. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Impact

• "The Halloween Storm of 1991 left significant damage" - replace "left" with "caused"?
  • "caused" gets boring. Is it ok if I leave it? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • On a second glance, yeah, it works. I dunno; I guess it just sounds awkward to me. :P --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 05:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "and lack of leaves on trees" - "few leaves left on trees"? I think it's called a faulty parallelism, but there is something iffy with this sentence.
  • Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "the Andrea Gail. The vessel was a swordfishing boat " - The Andrea Gail, which was a swordfishing boat"
  • Changed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• As with the lead, can you find a way to reword the sentence as to wikilink individually both the book and film for The Perfect Storm?
  • OK. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "tugboat named the Tamaroa" - Two things. Firstly, italicize the ship's name. Also, can you specify that it was a Coast Guard cutter?
  • No problem. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "hypothermic waters" - I don't think waters can be hypothermic. Can you rephrase it something like "waters capable of causing hypothermia"?
  • IDK, I think that just makes it really unnecessarily long. It's not that uncommon. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Alright. I'll take it. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 05:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "remained missing and was never found" - The "remained missing and" part is unnecessary.
  • I like it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• As with the lead, can you clarify that George Bush was George H.W. Bush? I know that the then-president part should be clear enough, but it is confusing on a first glance.
  • Lousy Republican dynasty! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Wikilink "moratorium" and "Outer Banks"?
• If Bush was the then-president, shouldn't James(Jim) Florio be the then-governor?

Criterion 2

• The article discusses how half of the total damage costs in Maine were to property, while the rest was to transportation, seawalls, and the like. Reference 1 (linked via the "i" ref) doesn't make a reference to how the damage costs in Maine were divided.
  • It's in the "Maine" citation ([4]). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• The article also discusses how, outside of Massachusetts, southern New Jersey was the next hardest-hit. Ref 1 doesn't make a claim to this either.
  • It's at the top of the page - "New Jersey (Southern) $75,000,000". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• The article states that damages in North Carolina cost $6.9 million. Reference 1 says $6.7 million.
  • Don't know how that happened, thanks for catching it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• This version of reference 5 discusses that the convergence of weather conditions were described as "perfect" for such a storm's formation. This isn't stated anywhere in the reference.
  • Fixed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• 75 miles per hour, the maximum sustained winds of the Perfect Storm, equates roughly to 65 knots according to Google. I could find neither in reference 10.
  • I added the best track database to back up the peak intensity. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reference 12 cites a passage that says there are a "lack of observation sites". The ref says that there aren't enough, not that there weren't any at all.
  • My bad in the wording. I didn't mean a complete lack. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reference 16 leads to a database of reports on NWS reports out of the Raleigh office. Use this page instead.
  • K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Reference 19 did not mention how the waves were 3 feet higher than expected from normal circumstances, as is cited.
  • Yea, it says "High tide was more than 3 feet above normal in Maine." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 3

• In the Warnings and preparations section: "which prevented an early warning in one instance." - I don't really understand what "in one instance" means. Can you specify?
  • Not really, actually. That was what was in the source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• This is just a suggestion, but in the Impact section, you could say that the counties in Massachusetts included the one including Boston (Suffolk County).
  • Good call. Does what I did work? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 05:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Criterion 4

The article does not appear to be biased towards any specific point of view.

Criterion 5

There are a few IP edits in recent times, but all appear to have been in good faith and accurate. The article is stable.

Criterion 6

• Why is the caption in the infobox picture italicized?
  • I have no idea, actually. There are no italics in the coding. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Italicize Tamaroa in the ship's picture.
  • OK. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Overall comments

Whoa, those online scanned preliminary report refs were difficult to read. :P

I'm glad I reviewed this article. Hurricanehink, you made it very informative, and I appreciate that. :) I'm putting the article on hold for now until all the issues are addressed, so let me know if you have any questions. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 03:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yea, not to mention the Google news stories got difficult when they started on one page and ended 20 pages later. But, I thank you for your excellent review. I believe I addressed all of your comments. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for the mess-ups in interpreting reference information. :P Anyways, you've done a good job addressing all but two at the bottom of this section. Once those are resolved, I'll pass this as a good article. :) --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed those! Heh, no problem in your interpretation. You were going for the record-longest GA review, I gotcha :P --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Believe me, I am nowhere close. :D Anyways, good work on yet another article! I'll pass this in a sec. --Starstriker7 - public^(talk) 14:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• For future reference, NHC reports normally use an assumed "we" when it comes to the issuance of other products in lieu of NHC advisories, since the NWS is "one team working together." This does not mean they issued anything in relation to the storm other than this storm report, and recon data in real-time. If a system is north of 31N latitude, none of the mentioned warnings originate from NHC. Coastal waters forecasts are issued by NWS WFOs (back then WSFOs) more info here on the CWFs. High Seas forecasts were issued from MPC (which became OPC a decade later) that far north. Back then, Offshore Marine Forecasts for the system would have been originated from the Boston WSFO. This product didn't leave WSFOs and fold into the operational products of MPC or TSB (now NHC's TAFB) until the mid 1990s. I've tried to correct the article for these issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.