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.
It appears that the May 30-June 4 system was considered a tropical depression during part of its life cycle. Once I do the rainfall graphic for the system, and some research regarding its phase (tropical or extratropical), I'll add a TC rainfall page which can be used as a reference for this article. I'm still on the hunt for the other tropical depressions. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made modest copyedits to the article. Please make sure to re-read articles that you've written before submitting them to GAN, some of the mistakes I've found are can be found on a cursory pass.
When referring to maximum sustained winds represented in HURDAT, don't use {{convert}} as the values are rounded from knots and often don't match the "proper" rounded values. Look at infoboxes for the proper km/h (or mph) value to write, or just shoot us a message in the group chat and/or IRC if you don't know it.
Lede
It was a below average season in terms of tropical storms... – Near-average is more appropriate given that the sourced average is 9.6 (more in season summary section)
In Bermuda, strong winds resulted in about $300,000 (1963 USD) in damage. – This sentence is completely out of place; either needs to be removed or reworded to flow better from the previous sentence regarding Arlene.
Hurricanes Beulah and Debra, as well as an unnamed tropical storm, did not impact land. – Also feels out of place, you're jumping around with storm formation and impacts but lack timing to give flow.
The above suggestions are if you wish to keep the first paragraph of the lede as-is. However, I'd suggest rewording the majority of it to cover the basics of how many storms formed, when the first and last one was, and what the strongest was. The second para can be dedicated to impact, with a sentence or two specifically for Flora.
But half the second paragraph is already dedicated to Flora, plus I've formatted it so the second paragraph begins with mentioning Flora as the most intense of the season. IMO, it sounds better or more exciting than starting the second paragraph with something like "Strong winds from Arlene caused about $300,000 (1963 USD) in damage in Bermuda"--12george1 (talk) 05:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Season summary
Section is completely lacking information on synoptic conditions throughout the season, which are described on page one of the Monthly Weather Review
As mentioned earlier, the comparison to average number of storms should be "near-average", same goes for the number of hurricanes as both are approximately ±1 of the average.
The hurricane turned to the north, where the anticyclone that was favoring development to its south caused unfavorable conditions. – No mention of this anticyclone prior to this statement.
Beulah weakened to a minimal hurricane and raced to the northeast... – Should probably mention somewhere that brief period of re-intensification on August 26
You should definitely mention the observation of 78 mph (126 km/h) from the Freiburg on September 12, that observation is why this storm was added to the database.
Early the following day, the hurricane weakened to a tropical storm and further to a tropical depression about six hours later. – "[After unspecified time], the hurricane weakened to a tropical storm and further to a tropical depression about six hours [after the unspecified time]."
The met history needs to be condensed to a single paragraph; just hit the major points (formation, peak intensity, general path, landfalls, dissipation). Two paragraphs is a bit much when there's a dedicated sub-article.
@12george1: Sorry for the long delay in getting back to you on this. All but two issues have been addressed. The season summary still needs synoptic information from the Monthly Weather Review and the recon tidbit for Debra. Once these are covered, I'll be happy to pass the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I should be apologizing. I got really lazy about fixing these things :P The review is getting close to a month old. I just fixed those two issues.--12george1 (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 2 external links on 1963 Atlantic hurricane season. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Looks good now, passing the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
