Talk:Central America Hurricane of 1941

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

	This article is part of WikiProject Central America, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to the Central America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Article

This might get a good grade for sure maybe this is the best article ive written since the Hurricane Gaston article. Storm05 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

?? Are you serious? First, this is a very random choice for a hurricane article. Second, the storm only killed 50. That was relatively common back then. There's probably too little info to even warrant an article, and not nearly enough for a B class or better. Ways to improve it would be longer intro, a 2 paragraph impact section, and a lot more impact, but seeing the areas it hit and the minimal damage it caused, this could be merged. You probably hate me saying that, but the storm isn't notable enough, IMO, to deserve an article. Hurricanehink 20:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your writing is getting better, keep it up! As Hink says you still have a long way to go. The introduction needs to be longer - see the discussion about the lead section on the wikiproject talk; it should have links to tropical cyclone and 1941 Atlantic hurricane season at least. 50 deaths and unknown damage make this storm of marginal notability, but based on the amount of info it has a decent chance to stay if the article can continue to be improved. — jdorje (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he is very right, and sorry if I was a little harsh (bad day at school...) I am quite pleased at the lack of overall grammar and spelling problems, and very nice job with the inline references. Hurricanehink 03:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)