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

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic / Non-tropical 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 article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Connecticut Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Vermont Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Vermont (assessed as Low-importance).

1804 New England 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.

Article milestones Date Process Result July 13, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 28, 2013 Good article nominee Listed January 2, 2014 Peer review Reviewed A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on May 19, 2006. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that an unnamed hurricane in October, 1804 brought up to three feet of snow to parts of New England? Current status: Good article

I'm not sure what more can be added, but more is needed for Start class. Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Does the expansion of the intro warrant and upgrade to start class? Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Not yet. There's probably not enough info on this storm to justify an article. That said, you could always try googling the storm, and possibly get more info to add. Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There you go. Quite a bit more expanded. Icelandic Hurricane #12 00:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, it's start. Hurricanehink ( talk) 00:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I did a general copyedit and upgraded it to B-Class, Good job Icelandic Hurricane #12! Storm05 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you! Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Can someone please fix the death chart thingy? I can't quite get it right. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 15:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have added {{ Fact}} in the article where a cite is needed to explain POV or a reword. The external links section is just a list of numbers the links need names. I realise that images from the actual storm arent possible, in the trivia section there is mention of a church maybe a possible picture of that. There is a link to a estimated track of the storm, suggest that a track be made to go into the article. The image and track items are suggestions and wouldnt stop me supporting a future GA nomination. Over all compared to the other storm articles I have recently reviewed the prose of this is a vague. Please no offense intended to the editors this article is more a struggling B-class (on the assestment scale). Gnangarra 11:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. I'll drop it to a start class, as some never agreed to the B class. Icelandic Hurricane, are you on this? Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Huh? I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Are you on this". Icelandic Hurricane #12 _(talk) 13:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

You wrote the article. Are you going to fix the comments Gnangarra mentioned? Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

Yea. I asked Jdorje if he could make a track map, though I doubt he can. And I put and image of the Old North Church on the article. More to come. Icelandic Hurricane #12 _(talk) 14:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I have put this on hold for 7 days the section on impact needs to have the unit measure format adjusted so that it use wikistandard xx inches (xx cm). Besides this I gave it a couple of minor edits including where I had previously asked for a cite, once the UOM are done it can be promoted to GA. Gnangarra 11:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, did that. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

GA-promotion

that was quick, I altered the measurments to mm or meters where appropriate, for you information meteoroligcal service use mm in preference to cm. Where object heights exceeds 3 feet use metres. Congratulations on to the editors of this article on attaining GA status it has significantly improved since my previous review. Gnangarra 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC) reply

I put this article up for GA review, as it doesn't meet all of the GA criteria.

• It's not particularly well-written - "winds reached as far as Norfolk with winds", "One ship was reported to have passed through the gale, damage to the vessel is unknown." (what does the ship have to do with the storm history?), "probably over Atlantic Canada", "An estimated track of the storm can be viewed here" (not encyclopediac), "blankets of snow to anywhere between New York and Southern Canada", "quite a loss of money", "worst recorded amount", "New York City received the worst recorded amount of snow from the storm; the pressure dropped from 992.5 mbar to 977.6 mbar over night. Rainfall totals reached 2.77 inches (70 mm)." (worst recorded amount doesn't make sense, and mentioning pressure later in the sentence is awkward), "In Bemis, New York, in the western section of New York, snow and rain was reported to have fallen." (is the exact location needed?), etc.
• It's missing some sources
• I'm not so sure if it's broad enough in its coverage. True, it occurred over 200 years ago, but the article relies almost entirely on three main sources

Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply

I propose the title be changed, since it's not very accurate. 1804 New Jersey hurricane? 1804 New England hurricane? ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Moved to "Snow Hurricane", which is what David Ludlum formally acknowledged it as. Juliancolton ( talk) 21:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Why not 1804 Snow hurricane? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Because "David Ludlum formally acknowledged it as" the "Snow Hurricane of 1804". I thought I said that already... Juliancolton ( talk) 01:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Why is it at "1804 New England hurricane" now? WP:COMMONNAME generally dictates precedence over nomenclature. Shouldn't this be back at Snow Hurricane of 1804, or at least Storm of October 1804? Cloudchased ( talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Usually we do "Year [Something] hurricane". What about "1804 Snow hurricane"? Call it what it is? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree with moving the article to "1804 Snow hurricane". TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Fine with me, only thing is that I can't even move the page... Cloudchased ( talk) 03:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Word choice – many words are repeated a few too many times throughout the article
• Clarity – this should be fixed once the copyedit is over
• Correct referencing – some of the references are mixed up due to the addition of information, and this will be checked before GAN
• Non-breaking spaces – in between numbers and before en dashes
• Organization of information – Group property damage, boat damage, crop/livestock/shipping/timber damage, and statistical information such that the article's information is well-organized
• Use of the word "were" – optimally, the article should contain less than 25 uses of "were," (i.e., cause to be given), which isn't done yet at the moment
• Find an alternate reference for WU – hopefully a more reliable reference can be found, if I can't, I'll remove the tidbit

Cloudchased ( talk) 21:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

what's wrong with the Jeff Masters tidbit? He's reliable. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 21:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

The blog was written in Dr. Masters' blogspace, but it was written by Christopher Burt, the weather historian for Weather Underground. That being said, Burt seems to be reliable as well. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hey, does anyone want to copyedit/clean and spice up the article's prose a bit? It's pretty decent IMHO up till the impact section, where it starts to get repetitive and slightly boring. :\ Cloudchased ( talk) 12:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I still think the bit about the October 2011 snowstorm should be clarified that the snow totals weren't exceeded for the month of October.

• "which were mostly not exceeded until the 2011 Halloween nor'easter, which produced several feet of snowfall in many areas"

So, find a way to remove one of the "which"es, but more importantly, this implies that there was never any heavier snow over 200 years, which I'm fairly certain isn't true. The source is generally about early-season snowstorms, so try and get some further clarification on this if you intend to FA this article. I passed it as a good article (and bumped it up to A), and that's my only further concern. :) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll clarify that. ;) Cloudchased ( talk) 23:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:1804 Snow hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink ( talk · contribs) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Any way to add an image to the article? Even a map of New England covered with snow would be better than nothing.

• There's a track map that I created from the Harvard Forest data, but an outstanding block on Commons and an unsuccessful block appeal have kept me from it – if you want, I could email it to you.

• Maybe ask User:Cyclonebiskit? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Given how close the current title is to "Snow Hurricane of 1804" (just a reorganization of the wording), I don't think you need to mention that as an alternate title.

• Removed.

• "...was the first tropical cyclone in recorded history known to produce snowfall." - you sure that applies to all TC's worldwide? Or just Atlantic?

• Reworded and cited. I dislike the wording of "world history," but it'll do for now, I suppose.

• "An unusual late-season storm in the 1804 Atlantic hurricane season" - technically there was no season then. Why not just "... in 1804"? Especially if it already says "late-season" (which I'm fine with more in theory than 1804 AHS)

• Fixed.

• "By the morning of 9 October, the movement of a trough by the Virginia Capes was noted, and as the disturbance progressed along the East Coast, it was steered over New England as a result." - way too verbose. --> "By early on 9 October, a trough near the Virginia Capes turned the disturbance toward New England." There, half as long and much easier to read.

• Done.

• The first paragraph of the MH says peak of "100 mph (175 km/h)", but the infobox says "110 mph (175 km/h)"

• Derp, fixed.

• But the MH still doesn't match the infobox, as far as peak. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Gaaah. Fixed.

• "strong gusts inflicted significant property damage, especially to churches, and extensive yet negligible impairment to private property was observed" - so heavy damage, but negligible damage? Really should be clearer and less verbose.

• I've tried to clear it up a bit; the damage was widespread but negligible (i.e., minor). It's still kind of wordy and messy... no other wordings have really struck me yet. :\

• So churches were damaged more heavily than houses? I don't get it. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• ...clarified.

• You mention ship damage in both the 2nd and 3rd lede paragraphs. Why?

• Clarified so that one primarily referred to the industries while the other related to vessel damage (i.e., not shipping)

• Isn't a damaged ship related to shipping industry? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yeppers, fixed.

• "the though's motion" - you mean "trough" here, right?

• Fixed.

• "historical documents confirm it quickly reached Chesapeake Bay later that morning with west-to-north winds" - did the hurricane have west-to-north winds? Or was the confirmation based on those winds?

• Clarified... ish?

That's it through the MH section. Looking pretty good so far. :) --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 06:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think you should split the first paragraph of "impact and records", starting a new paragraph at " In the Middle-Atlantic states"

• Done, yeeep.

• " it caused little injury to watercraft, though many boats and ships were capsized" - I'd just nix the first part, since it seems contradictory. Little damage, but many sank? I'd merge that part with "shipwrecks led to 16 deaths"

• That was a mistake in writing; I meant to write something along the lines of "little damage on land but a lot on water"

• "with considerable destruction... cattle" ?? Exploding cows?

• Err... maybe "destruction" wasn't the best word to use here. :P

• "A negative storm tide observed at Baltimore triggered the grounding of multiple boats" --> "A negative storm tide at Baltimore grounded multiple boats." What's wrong with simplicity? :P
• "and another was run ashore" --> "and another ran ashore"

• Fixed, thanks!

• " In Newburgh, many houses were destroyed over due to the severity of the winds and ships needed to travel with sails lowered,[2] and meanwhile at New York Harbor, not a single craft docked due to the vigorous gale on 10 October" - please rewrite... split... reorganize...

• Done, whaddya think?

• "In Boston, strong winds, described as "unprecedented in the annals" of the city, were documented during the afternoon of 9 October, blowing off the steeple of the Old North Church, while the roof of the King's Chapel was tossed 200 feet (61 m) from its initial location, landing on an adjacent house and crushing two carriages into pieces." - split after "Old North Church"

• Yeppers, done.

• "poplar trees were uprooted, structures bent and crumpled, and many wharves ruined" - the last bit doesn't quite work. If you're going for parallelism, say "the storm [verb noun], [verb noun], and [verb noun]." As it stands, it's three different constructions in a row. First is "were uprooted", passive voice. The second is simple past tense "bent and crumbled". But the third doesn't work. Wharves can't simply ruin. There needs to be a direct object. Or, this entire bit needs to be rewritten.

• Changed to [verb noun] for parallel structure.

• "The Charlestown Navy Yard was to be dismantled" - why the "was to be"? It's like future tense but in the past... confusing

• Tense changed.

• "The steeple of the Old North Church, which was eventually repaired and restored several times, was blown down by once more in 1954 by Hurricane Carol and mended yet again" - why isn't this mentioned when you talk about the Old North Church?

• Euhm, fixed.

• I think you mention downed trees a bit too many times in "Southern New England" section. Only one of the five paragraphs doesn't mention it. Maybe reorganize?

• Reorganized; mostly in the second paragraph now, except for the parts in other states.

• "While little frozen precipitation fell in Massachusetts" - eh? You mentioned 18 inches of snow in the previous paragraph

• Clarified: the reports were isolated (i.e., mostly falling only in mountainous regions)

• Is there any need to use the word "propinquity" ever? :P

• Maybe "vicinity"? :P

• "it still produced disproportionate totals of frozen precipitation in the northeastern United States, which were mostly not exceeded until the 2011 Halloween nor'easter, which in areas received several feet of snowfall" - the bit of being exceeded only refers to October snow, not in general.

• Ring.

• "Similar circumstances occurred in 2012 with the arrival of Hurricane Sandy, which had a similar track to the 1804 snowstorm" - don't say "similar" twice

• Ding.

That's it! Just these minor things. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 19:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1804 Snow hurricane. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131220052813/http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/rare-october-snowstorm-hammers-northeast-us to http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/rare-october-snowstorm-hammers-northeast-us

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC) reply