This article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

Weather:Tropical /AtlanticLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Weather, which collaborates onweather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit theproject page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale. This article is supported byWikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed asLow-importance). This article is supported bythe Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed asLow-importance). Richmond, Virginia (defunct) This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Richmond, Virginia, a project which is currently considered to bedefunct.Richmond, VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject Richmond, VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject Richmond, VirginiaRichmond, Virginia

Hurricane Gaston (2004) is currently an Earth sciencesgood article nominee.Nominated by ♫Hurricanehink (talk) at 20:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with thegood article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, clickdiscuss review and then edit the page. Short description: Category 1 Atlantic hurricane in 2004

This article needs a full copyedit, with restructuring (to have more than 1 section) and a fair share of grammar/spelling fixes.Jdorje22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of fixing grammar/spelling/other issues. --RattleMan05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah: also, the majority of the impact section seems to be stolen from the Times Dispatch. In my estimation it would be best to delete the whole impact section and rewrite it from scratch. Basically, none of the writings by this user can be trusted.Jdorje05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about this user, and hopefully rebuild it.Hurricanehink14:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cited some of the information that if forgot to cite when I wrote the articleStorm0518:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually impressed with how extensive this article is. Is a copyedit really nessisary? Perhaps I read it after changes were made but I think that the article is great. Some of the sections could use to be expanded, but other than that, it's a pretty solid article. I'm removing the cleanup notice. --§Hurricane ERIC§archive --my dropsonde03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an example, the intro does not give the year/season, or the month/date, or link totropical cyclone. The rest of the writing is...passable.Jdorje03:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date added to intro. What needs to be done to make the writing more than "passable". A still just see a few spotted gramatical errors and typos, but maybe it's me. --§HurricaneERIC§archive23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair number of misspellings and grammatical errors. A lot of the text seems like "spaghetti" in that it is just a disconnected list of facts with little overall narrative thread. Metric units are not widely included. Inline references should be included (via <ref> and <reference/>).Jdorje00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a copy edit on this article and im suggesting to upgadge it to B-Class if thats okay.Storm0519:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is too short and contains misspellings. — jdorje (talk)19:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also numerous spelling and tense problems throughout the article. — jdorje (talk)19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nearing B Class, because I added more picturesStorm0518:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem wasn't too few pictures, and in fact there's probably too many pics right now. The problem was the spelling and grammar problems throughout the article.Hurricanehink19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can never be B-class while it has misspellings in the intro. —jdorje(talk)21:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive corrected some spelling and grammar errors and can a "stories of survial" section be included in the article.Storm0517:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell you've only made the spelling worse. Please, please, please use a spell checker. Also, "stories of survival" are not encyclopedic. I have my own story of survival (I drove from Savannah to Wilmington through this storm), but it doesn't belong in the article. Millions of people "survived" this storm. —jdorje(talk)18:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What spell checker?!. i cant find it.Storm0518:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one in Microsoft Word. You can probably download one from the internet somewhere. --Golbez18:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?q=spell+checker —jdorje(talk)19:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have used the spell checker and checked and double checked the article and found no spelling errors so this article must be ready to be upgraded to a B.Storm0514:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are still at least 4 misspellings in the intro. —jdorje(talk)17:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<--------

What is with the obsession of this article? The storm didn't do very much, with the exception of Richmond. There are also too many pictures in the article.Hurricanehink20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheHurricane Katrina article had a lot of pictures, so why are you saying that this article has too many pictures , I dont understand that.Storm0520:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina was also the costliest hurricane U.S. history, whereas Gaston didn't even cause 1% of its damage. Gaston was a very localized event, so why are you so obsessed with this article? Did you go through it?Hurricanehink20:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did and I also saw a special on this stormStorm0520:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that explains it. Still, you have to be objective. I would love to write a Katrina sized article for any storm that came through my area, but only those that went through it would be interested. If you have Microsoft Word, you might want to try using the spelling and grammar check, no offense. Fixing the many errors would bring this up to B class for sure.Hurricanehink20:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the spelling , now its time for this article to be upgraded to B Class.Storm0513:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almost. There are places where the information is generalized; people were evacuated, some officials assumed, many computer models, major freshwater flooding. There are too many sections. The unpredictability section could easily go in the preparations, or vice versa. Too many times you use too short of sentences.As Gaston moved inland it dumped very heavy rain over central Virginia. The hardest hit area was Richmond where over 12 inches fell. What is wrong with saying,Upon reaching central Virginia, Gaston dropped torrential precipitation, with Richmond being the area hardest hit wit 12 inches of rain." That is about as long as one of your sentences, yet is much more consise. This is rampant throughout the article, and makes it a little boring to read. Imagine if I wrote like this. I keep using small sentences. This is simple to read. Or.... Imagine if I wrote like this, by using longer sentences that are more interesting to read. There's no need to have such a complex death toll table. Just list the county and the number of deaths. It's almost there, but still needs some work.Hurricanehink15:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having a B-class article isn't really about good writing, it's more about content. However the structure of this article is just too confused for me to upgrade it. Why is flooding, "close calls", and "deaths" a separate section of the impact? Why is an unpredictability section under the impact? Why is there a "summary" of the aftermath that has nothing to do with the rest of the aftermath sections? I tried to do a little reorganizing but gave up because the content is confusing too. The article doesn't even say where the Chickahominy and James rivers are, so how are we supposed to even know what those sections are talking about? An in the aftermath->summary it says "city officials", but what cities is it talking about? Same in "recovery and criticism", what local governments is it talking about? Finally, please spell-check the rest of the article (not just the intro); devistating isn't any more of a word than devestating is. —jdorje(talk)20:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theHurricane Katrina,Hurricane Rita,Hurricane Floyd and other articles have structures similar to the Gaston article.Storm0519:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The top-level structure is fine. But the secondary structure (section ordering) makes little sense. In some places you order the sections by location (South Carolina/Virginia), and in other places you order them by type of damage (flooding/deaths). —jdorje(talk)22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm05, there is little comparison between Gaston and Katrina. The reason because they had those sections was due to the widespread effects. Gaston was relatively little.Hurricanehink00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to the Storm history/Preparations/Impact/Aftermath structure that we've taken to using. Gaston does follow this structure. The problem is in the lower-level structure. Why are there separate sections on "Virginia", "Flooding", and "Close calls"? Didn't the Flooding happenin Virginia? And weren't the close calls caused by flooding? —jdorje(talk)00:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the flooding happened in Virginia and the close calls were caused by flooding.Storm0518:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of some of the unneeded sections. This article is in need of inline sources and some more structure to the impact section.Hurricanehink20:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Little River reference wouldn't be to the Little River in FL. It would be to Little River Inlet in Little River, SC. The NHC lists the areas of warning for the eastern seaboard from a S to N or W to E direction, so that the directions first in danger of being hit are listed first. So one from Savannah River to Little River Inlet would refer to Little River Inlet, SChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_River_%28Horry_County,_South_Carolina%29. The NHC Tropical Cycle Report on Gaston shows a table (Table 5 - Watch and warning summary for Hurricane Gaston 27, August - 1 September , 2004.) which has the watches and warnings. Since Gaston hit just north of Charleston, they wouldn't have issued a warning for FL on Aug 28 at 3PM EDT, when, as of the day before (Aug 27) Gaston was 130 n miles southeast of Charleston. Granted it was moving westward, but not very quickly, and by this time it was well north of the Little River(s) in FL. There are actually 2 Little Rivers in FL. One empties into Biscayne Bay and the other is a tributary of the Ochlockonee River. I do not think either are used as references of warnings for the NHC. The warnings from past years are listed on the NHC pages. As of 2 PM EDT SAT AUG 28 2004 the NHC advisory stated "A TROPICAL STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT ALONG THE SOUTHCAROLINA COAST FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER TO LITTLE RIVER INLET." (Sorry for the caps, it is how the page on the NHC lists it.) Here is a link to the advisory.^[1]WayneyP (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)I noticed another inaccuracy as well. The article states "At 0300 UTC the tropical storm watch that was issued from Surf City, North Carolina to Fernandina Beach, Florida was upgraded to a tropical storm warning, and all other tropical storm watches were upgraded to tropical storm warnings." 0300 UTC is 11pm EDT. So a warning issued at 0300 UTC 29 August 2004 would be issued as 1100 EDT 28 August 2004. The advisory according to the NWS NHC advisory page states: "A HURRICANE WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR COASTAL SOUTH CAROLINA FROM THE SAVANNAH RIVER TO LITTLE RIVER INLET.... ...AT 11 PM EDT...0300Z...A TROPICAL STORM WARNING IS ISSUED FOR COASTAL NORTH CAROLINA FROM NORTH OF LITTLE RIVER INLET TO SURF CITY.A TROPICAL STORM WATCH REMAINS IN EFFECT FOR COASTAL GEORGIA FROMSOUTH OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER TO FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA."Rather than what the article states, it should state: "At 0300 UTC the tropical storm watch issued for north of Little River Inlet to Surf City, North Carolina was upgraded to a tropical storm warning. The tropical storm watch issued for coastal Georgia from south of the Savannah River to Fernadina Beach, Florida remained in effect."Tropical Storm Gaston Advisory Number 6WayneyP (talk)19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Must've forgot to cite the information in the Impact section.Storm0517:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this article and feel that it is very informative, but do we really need such an article?Omni ND19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the article is to show the storm's devestating effects on Richmond. Rarely does a storm effect a major city. However, the article does not need to be as long as it is. The effects were fairly localized.Hurricanehink21:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very close to B-class. The intro should be expanded to 2 paragraphs, storm history to 3 paragraphs if possible (I know I condensed it but feel free to edit what I did), preparations either needs to be added to greatly or removed (specifics would be great, it says people were evacuated but it doesn't say how many), impact should be expanded in South Carolina and North Carolina, Virginia's section needs a complete re-organization, move unpredictability to somewhere else, and shorten aftermath. The article size should be proportionate to the importance of the article. In fact, we should probably have some sort of formula for the upper bound of an article. There is such a thing as too much information. Long quotes should be avoided, too many sub-sections should be avoided, and some of the pictures should be removed. The storm wasn't that terribly notable, and 14 pictures for a storm like this is pretty useless. Finally, what is needed for B class is inline references. Everything sourced should use a proper format, demonstrated like this: <refname="something">[www.link.com Summary of the link]</ref>, but with a space between ref and name.Hurricanehink04:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion but heres my opinon on this article--

Damage Pictures-Keep-except the landslide picture which looks totally awful (the colors look distorted) keep the rest.

Peparations-Keep-some storms with a separate article should have a peparations section.

North Carolina and South Carolina sections expaned-big yes- if info found.

Virginia impact-Undecided but weak keep this is far as the impact in Virginia goes.

Format-weak agree-the <ref></ref> things keep acting weird like saying cite 3 error or something.

Storm0516:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using ref/reference tags shouldn't be needed for B-class. The article is probably B-class now just based on content, but I agree with hink on all the problems that it still has. —jdorje(talk)17:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article looks poorly organized becaused there are a lot of pictures in an article that deserves more text.juan andrés23:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think more text is needed. There may be slightly too many pictures (like 1 too many) but a bigger problem is just picture and section layout. Moving things around could fix most of the problems. —jdorje(talk)04:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are just a few too many pictures. I don't like it when there are pictures on the left side and the right side at the same time. It can be a distraction and throw-off to some people on some browsers. We could take out one or two pictures of automobile damage and maybe the one of the tree damage or the landslide. —BazookaJoe01:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the images as copyvios. Can someone reassess please?--Nilfanion (talk)17:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's a B class. While there are some unsourced statements, the article is, in general, informative.Hurricanehink (talk)19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Charleston, SC report
• Wilmington, NC report
• Raleigh, NC report
• Wakefield, VA report
• Binghamton, NY report

These should probably be used in the article.Hurricanehink (talk)17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link onHurricane Gaston (2004). Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If necessary, add{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add{{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/20051022110111/http://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/weather/special/storm/2004/atlantic/gaston/news.html tohttp://www.palmbeachpost.com/storm/content/weather/special/storm/2004/atlantic/gaston/news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}03:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link onHurricane Gaston (2004). Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20081011193657/http://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/winds_c_point_rich.htm tohttp://www.civilwarnews.com/archive/articles/winds_c_point_rich.htm

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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot(Report bug)06:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Gaston redirects here, so this article should beHurricane Gaston rather thanHurricane Gaston (2004). It's also the only storm namedGaston with an article.CooperScience (talk)00:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for virtually same reasons as before. I really think you should cool it with the constant RMs as most of them don’t really even hold enough weight to support them. In this case, Gaston 2004 doesn’t really hold the primary topic, since Gaston 2010 was also an interesting storm, plus the 2016 incarnation was much stronger then this one. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs)00:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those storms made landfall, and as we see with storms like Allison (2001) and Karl (2010), effects, not strength, matters. And this is the last RM I am doing for a while. Although I do agree with you on the rate of RMs. I will make it less frequent (although I said this is the last one I will do for a while).CooperScience (talk)01:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: The 2004 has the most serious land impact among the three of them, but may not be a primary topic. --B dash (talk)02:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above but someone should fix that Hurricane Gaston redirect thing that likely pre-dates the 2016 major.YE^{PacificHurricane}02:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not a primary topic, then I would suggest that the redirect be changed.CooperScience (talk)17:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Find out the cause of the indirect death
• Find out about longstanding info in article that was unsourced

• Floods affected the VDOT repair fund to repair roads/bridges
• New Richmond flood warning system

I'm not saying I'll take this to FAC, but if I did, I'd want to find out about the above. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)20:12, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This review istranscluded fromTalk:Hurricane Gaston (2004)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator:Hurricanehink (talk ·contribs)20:13, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer:Aviationwikiflight (talk·contribs)16:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this. You should be expecting comments within a week.Aviationwikiflight (talk)16:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Authorship sits at 82%.Aviationwikiflight (talk)15:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• TheCopyvio detector lists a similarity of 5.7% with an article, which is not actionable.Aviationwikiflight (talk)15:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• All images are properly licensed.Aviationwikiflight (talk)15:26, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• All images are relevant to the subject article.Aviationwikiflight (talk)15:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the caption for the infobox image, it does not appear like the hurricane moved ashore at the time of the snapshot, and instead, it seems to have still been off the coast.Aviationwikiflight (talk)15:32, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Good catch! I fixed it. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)18:52, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviationwikiflight: - are there any further comments? ♫Hurricanehink (talk)19:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nearly done on the source analysis, which you should expect very soon.Aviationwikiflight (talk)16:44, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This table checks all 67 passages in the article (containing 82 inline citations from 51 unique sources).Generated with theVeracity user script.Aviationwikiflight (talk)07:14, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
The origins of Gaston were from a cold front that exited the east coast of the United States on August 22, the same system that also spawned Tropical Storm Hermine. The front left the Carolinas and weakened as it drifted southward, until stalling on August 24. A broad low pressure area developed within the front on August 25 off the southeast coast of the United States. Another area of convection, or thunderstorms, developed along the front near Bermuda, which would become Hermine.
1	a	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
2	a	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
As late as August 26, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) dismissed the potential for development.
3		nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
That day however, the western area of thunderstorms became more organized as it developed rainbands. By 12:00 UTC on August 27, the system organized enough to be designated Tropical Depression Seven, located about 130 mi (210 km) east-southeast of Charleston, South Carolina. Upon its formation, the depression was in an area of weak steering currents, resulting in a southwest drift.
1	b	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Situated over warm ocean temperatures, the depression was in an area favorable for further strengthening. Its thunderstorms became more organized, signaling that the system intensified into Tropical Storm Gaston early on August 28.
1	c	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
4		nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
By early on August 29, Gaston developed an eye feature as it continued to strengthen.
5		nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Around that time, the storm's track shifted to the northwest and later north. It was steered by a ridge to its northeast and an approaching trough.
1	d	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Gaston continued to strengthen as it approached the coast, and it attained hurricane status around 12:00 UTC on August 29, with maximum sustained winds of 75 mph (120 km/h). About two hours later, Gaston made landfall at Awendaw, South Carolina, between Charleston and McClellanville, as a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson scale. Operationally, the NHC assessed Gaston as a strong tropical storm at landfall, before upgrading it in a post-season analysis based on the NEXRAD Doppler wind data. The storm rapidly weakened over land as it turned to the northeast, falling to tropical depression status by early on August 30.
1	e	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		Is it valid to assume that NWS doppler radar refers to NEXRAD?
Around that time, the NHC issued what the agency believed would be the final advisory on Gaston. The agency anticipated that the system would interact with the approaching trough and remain inland over the eastern United States.
6		nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
While progressing inland, Gaston increased wind shear over Tropical Storm Hermine, which was moving toward New England.
2	b	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Gaston drew moisture from the coast near Virginia Beach to produce supercell thunderstorms over central Virginia, a sign that the depression was re-intensifying. Around 00:00 UTC on August 31, Gaston regained tropical storm status while the center was over Virginia. Shortly thereafter, the storm crossed the Delmarva Peninsula and emerged back into the Atlantic Ocean.
7	a	glenallenweather.com			I can verify the "coast" part but not the "near Virginia Beach" part.
1	f	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
The thunderstorms were limited as Gaston accelerated northeastward and interacted with the frontal system.
1	g	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		Can't verify that the thunderstorms were limited.
8		nhc.noaa.gov			Same.
9		nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		Same.
Late on August 31, the storm passed about 70 mi (110 km) south of Nantucket, Massachusetts. On the next day, Gaston transitioned into an extratropical storm while located south of Nova Scotia. It continued to the northeast, remaining southeast of Atlantic Canada, before reaching the north Atlantic Ocean. The extratropical remnants of Gaston were absorbed by a larger extratropical system on September 3, located south-southeast of Iceland.
1	h	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Soon after Gaston first formed, the NHC began issuing tropical cyclone watches and warnings for the southeast United States coast, beginning with a tropical storm watch between Fernandina Beach, Florida and Surf City, North Carolina to Fernandina Beach, Florida. Initially, the NHC did not anticipate that Gaston would become a hurricane, but after the storm intensified, the agency issued a hurricane warning between the mouth of the Savannah River to Little River Inlet about 14 hours before landfall. A tropical storm warning extended northeastward to Surf City.
1	i	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
By August 29, flood watches were in effect for eastern South Carolina and eastern and southern North Carolina.
10		wpc.ncep.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
South Carolina officials recommended that residents evacuate from mobile homes, coastal and low-lying areas, and barrier islands. Across the Charleston area, six shelters opened and held more than 100 people during the storm.
11		weather.gov	web.archive.org
In Charleston and surrounding areas, bridges were closed to large vehicles and trucks.
12		insurancejournal.com	web.archive.org		Correct, but I'm not sure why the mention of SUVs was not added.
Historic sites in the Charleston area were closed during the storm.
13		nps.gov	web.archive.org
When Gaston was weakening while moving inland, local National Weather Service offices in Virginia did not anticipate flooding rains, and as a result did not issue flood watches. However, flash flood warnings were issued in advance of the most severe floods.
7	b	glenallenweather.com
By late on August 30, flood warnings were issued for portions of central Virginia, and tornado watches were put into effect for parts of southeast Virginia and northern North Carolina.
14		wpc.ncep.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Across the eastern United States, Hurricane Gaston produced rainfall from South Carolina to parts of New England.
15	a	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Damage throughout the United States was estimated around $130 million.
1	j	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Gaston was the third of five hurricanes to make landfall in the country in 2004.
16		nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
Hurricane Gaston struck South Carolina two weeks after Hurricane Charley hit the state, marking the first time since the 1959 season that two tropical cyclones struck the state in the same year.
17	a	dnr.sc.gov	web.archive.org
The highest recorded winds related to Gaston was a wind gust of 82 mph (131 km/h) on Capers Island.
1	k	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		The NHC doesn't say that it was the highest recorded wind; the wind gust didn't happen on Capers Island, but south of it per the NHC ("...just south of Capers Island...")
The hurricane also spawned a tornado near Wallace, rated an F1 on the Fujita scale, which was on the ground for about 1 mi (1.6 km). The tornado damaged the roof of a house while also knocking down trees and a fence.
1	l	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
18		ncdc.noaa.gov			Not just a house, but multiple houses ("There was roof and siding damage to many homes").
While moving ashore, the hurricane also produced a 4.5 ft (1.4 m) storm surge, or rise in tidal waters, at Bulls Bay.
1	m	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		"...or rise in tidal waters, at Bulls Bay." – First part, I can verify, but the quoted part, I can't.
The storm caused erosion along Lake Moultrie, with piers and seawalls wrecked at Bonneau Beach. The highest rainfall in the state from Gaston was 10.98 in (279 mm), recorded in Kingstree, where floodwaters reached 5 ft (1.5 m) deep. Gaston's rains added to the rainfall produced by Hurricane Charley, causing road closures and river flooding, with some areas inundated for weeks. The floods forced evacuations in Quinby and northern Berkeley County, while also affecting Darlington and Lake City. The Lumber River crested nearly 8 ft (2.4 m) above flood stage, resulting in record floods along the river. Throughout South Carolina, Gaston left about 172,000 people without power, mostly near Charleston. More than 3,000 buildings sustained damage due to the hurricane, including 8 buildings that were destroyed in Charleston County due to fallen trees. The winds also knocked down signs, fences, and mailboxes, and several cars were damaged by fallen trees.
19	a	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov			(All concerns for this part are placed here) – Contradiction on rainfall totals. The WPC link says 10.98 while the DNR link says 10.50. Which one is it? "where floodwaters reached 5 ft (1.5 m) deep." – Can't verify this. "...with some areas inundated for weeks." – Can't verify this. Can't find a mention of evacuations in Quinby. "The Lumber River crested nearly 8 ft (2.4 m) above flood stage, resulting in record floods along the river." – Not verified. Contradiction on the number of people who lost power. The DNR source mentions 172,000 while NOAA mentions over 150,000. Which is it? NOAA mentions that most of the power outages were in "northern Charleston county and the northern and eastern parts of Berkeley county", not only "near Charleston". It was not only fallen trees, but also "fallen limbs" per NOAA. "The winds also knocked down signs, fences, and mailboxes, and several cars were damaged by fallen trees." – NOAA does not mention that winds were the cause nor that the "signs, fences, and mailboxes" were knocked down (only says that they were damaged); NOAA does not state cars but vehicles, not only damaged by fallen trees but limbs too.
17	b	dnr.sc.gov	web.archive.org
20		ncdc.noaa.gov
There was at least $20 million in insured damage in the state.
1	n	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		Remove "at least".
While crossing North Carolina as a tropical depression, Gaston dropped heavy rainfall, reaching 6.21 in (158 mm) near Jackson Springs.
19	b	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov			"While crossing North Carolina as a tropical depression... – Source?
The rains flooded several roads, including portions of Interstate 95, ramps leading to I-40, and street flooding that stranded a few trucks.
21		ncdc.noaa.gov			"...ramps leading to I-40, and street flooding that stranded a few trucks. – Not verified in the source.
Wind gusts in North Carolina reached 45 mph (72 km/h) at Carolina Beach.
1	o	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		Can verify, but is it worth mentioning that this is an unofficial data per the table?
The winds were strong enough to knock down trees, including one that fell onto a home in Clayton, one that hit a post office, and another that fell onto a vehicle in Selma.
22		ncdc.noaa.gov			The source does not mention a tree hitting a post office.
These winds knocked out power to 6,500 customers.
23		recordnet.com			Can't access the link, and it is not available on the Internet Archive. Would you be able to quote me the passage that verifies this information?
Gaston also spawned several tornadoes in the state, all of them rated F0. The first touched down near Laurinburg, which damaged a roof and shingles. Near Raeford, a tornado damaged four houses along its 1 mi (1.6 km) path. There was a brief twister near Anderson Creek that downed a few trees.
1	p	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		Both sources contradict each other. The NHC mentions that, "Two tornados were confirmed in North Carolina on 29 August: an F0 in Scotland County and an unrated tornado in Hoke County", whilst NOAA's Storm Events Database which lists three tornadoes (1,2,3), are all rated F0 but do not mention a link with Gaston. The NHC mentions two tornadoes while NOAA's "All events for this episode" lists three tornadoes. Would you be able to find newer sources that talk about these tornadoes?
24		ncdc.noaa.gov			Same.
There was at least $15 million in insured damage in the state.
1	q	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
The heaviest rainfall from Gaston was in Virginia, with a peak of 12.60 in (320 mm) measured in the West End of the state capital, Richmond. Most of the rainfall occurred over an eight-hour period, causing flash flooding across the Greater Richmond Region that contributed to nine fatalities. Five of the deaths were drivers who entered flooded areas, and three people died while attempting to rescue others. Another death was indirectly related to Gaston. The floods damaged or destroyed 580 buildings across the region, with at least $30 million in insured damage across the state. Richmond's drainage system was unable to handle the high rainfall.
1	r	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		It might beWP:OR to take unofficial rainfall totals (as precised by the NHC) from a table, where the numbers are not classified in order, in addition to another table which has official rainfall totals, and say that one rainfall total is the biggest. Looking throughWP:OR/WT:OR, the closest thing I can find would beWikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 64#RfC on clarification of WP:CALC for costliest tornadoes, where the consensus was that "Costliness of a tornado must have a reliable secondary source attributed to the fact", which in this case would mean that ranking rainfall totals needs a secondary source. "Flash floods in the Richmond area directly resulted in 8 fatalities. Five of these were from motorists attempting to drive through flooded roadways, including one who drove around a barricade to do so. Three individuals were killed during rescue attempts. One indirect death was also reported." – Is the indirect fatality counted? If not, the text should only mention that there were 8 fatalities related to the flooding (keeping the mention of the indirect fatality) as it's not stated how the ninth person died. In addition, on the first page, it's stated that "Flooding in the Richmond, Virginia metropolitan area resulted in 8 deaths", with no mention of the indirect fatality. Remove the "at least" as the $30 million are given as definitive totals.
15	b	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov	web.archive.org
7	c	glenallenweather.com
In the city's Shockoe Bottom district, floodwaters reached 10 ft (3.0 m) deep. The floods left 20 city blocks condemned near downtown. The floods destroyed a brick building and significantly damaged dozens of buildings.
25		ncdc.noaa.gov			Is "near downtown" missing a word at the end? In addition, it was notnear downtown Richmond, it wasin downtown Richmond.
Hundreds of roads across the Richmond area were closed due to floods,
26	a	www2.ljworld.com			"Hundreds" would be at least 200. The source only mentions at least 120.
including parts of the Powhite Parkway,
27		wtvr.com	web.archive.org
and part of I-95. At least 14 people required rescue from flooded cars or buildings.
28		pressdemocrat.com			Technically correct, but as a recommendation, for accuracy, I'd rather stick with what the source says, which mentions that 14 rescues were performed.
Six bridges were washed out across the area.
26	b	www2.ljworld.com			Add "At least" as the source mentions that more may have been washed out.
The floods shut down passenger and freight rail traffic through the city.
29	a	sunjournal.com	web.archive.org		The source doesn't say that all traffic was shut down. Mention that it wasCSX Corporation that shut down its traffic.
The floods also created a 30 ft (9.1 m) sinkhole, closing an intersection.
30		nbcnews.com	web.archive.org		Just a small nitpick. The intersection didn't "close", it pretty much disappeared per the article.
Waters overtopped a dam along the Falling Creek, forcing hundreds of people to evacuate. Officials opened two shelters to house the evacuees. The floods also triggered several landslides, including one in Church Hill that damaged a house so much, it was condemned.
31		claimsjournal.com	web.archive.org
32	a	dcr.virginia.gov	web.archive.org		(You don't need to this, just a suggestion) – I know that the source says that "[the house] was ultimately condemned and purchased by the City", but is there not another way to say? The tone makes it sound dramatic.
About 52,000 people lost power in Virginia, mostly nearly Richmond.
29	b	sunjournal.com	web.archive.org		The source states, "About 51,000 customers of Dominion Virginia Power had no electricity Tuesday, mostly in the Richmond area." Where does the extra thousand come from? In addition, I would precise that those who lost power wereDominion Energy customers, which isn't representative of Virginia as a whole. Other sources also mention 82,000 ([1],[2]).
Wind gusts in Virginia reached 55 mph (89 km/h) in Kiptopeke State Park while Gaston was restrengthening over the state. The storm also spawned 16 tornadoes in the state, all of them rated an F0. The first was in Dinwiddie County, which lifted and threw a shed. In Hopewell, a tornado damaged the historic Appomattox Manor and a nearby shed. An intermittent 6 mi (9.7 km) tornado hit a hospital in New Kent County, causing minor damage. A twister damaged the roof of a church in Nottoway County. There were two tornadoes in York County, both of which caused roof damage. A tornado hit Richmond, causing minor damage to cars and buildings at the University of Richmond. Two tornadoes touched down in James City, and weak tornadoes also hit Chesterfield, Hanover, New Kent, Prince George, Surry, and York counties, each knocking down a few trees.
1	s	nhc.noaa.gov	web.archive.org		"Wind gusts in Virginia reached 55 mph (89 km/h) in Kiptopeke State Park while Gaston was restrengthening over the state. The storm also spawned 16 tornadoes in the state, all of them rated an F0." –Y I can't verify the rest (from "The first was in Dinwiddie County..." to "... each knocking down a few trees.")
33		npshistory.com			I can't verify the rest (from "The first was in Dinwiddie County..." to "... each knocking down a few trees.")
Rains in Maryland peaked at 2.57 in (65 mm) in Oakland.
34	a	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov
Floods entered a post office and covered several roads, including State Route 219.
35		ncdc.noaa.gov
Rainfall in Delaware reached 1.82 in (46 mm) in Greenwood.
34	b	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov
The rains caused floods along rivers and streams in northern Delaware. The Christina River swelled to a crest of 10.55 ft (3.22 m), slightly above flood stage.
36		ncdc.noaa.gov
Rains in Pennsylvania reached 3.75 in (95 mm) in Sinnemahoning.
34	c	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov
The rains caused a rise in streams and rivers, causing road flooding in Montgomery County.
37		ncdc.noaa.gov			No mention of rivers rising (even if one can infer that it most likely happened).
Two families were displaced by floods in Hollidaysburg and were housed by the American Red Cross.
38		ncdc.noaa.gov			The source states that the Red Cross "assisted" them. It doesn't mention any housing.
Several basements were flooded in Wellsboro, and a driver required rescue from a stranded vehicle.
39		ncdc.noaa.gov			"[A] drive required rescue from a stranded vehicle" is not the same as "One vehicle rescue was performed."
The highest rainfall in New Jersey was 3.94 in (100 mm) in New Lisbon.
34	d	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov
The rains caused floods of streams in Burlington County.
40		ncdc.noaa.gov
Rains in New York reached 4.71 in (120 mm) in Kingston, where the precipitation created a sinkhole.
34	e	wpc.ncep.noaa.gov
41		ncdc.noaa.gov
Several roads and buildings were destroyed in Orange County, prompting states of emergency in Port Jervis and Deer Park.
42		ncdc.noaa.gov			The source states, "The hardest hit areas were Port Jervis and Deer Park, where flooding was severe enough to initiate states of emergencies." It doesn't say that the roads and buildings being destroyed in Orange County prompted the states of emergency.
Rainfall in New England peaked at 3.69 in (94 mm) in Chatham.
43		wpc.ncep.noaa.gov
On August 30, Gaston's heaviest rainfall remained just offshore Nova Scotia, although Sable Island recorded 72 mm (2.8 in) of rainfall in four hours.
44		canada.ca			"Heaviest rainfall" isn't mentioned in the source.
The floods in Richmond left behind a layer of silt and debris.
45		dailypress.com	web.archive.org		"Silt" isn't mentioned in the article, although mud is.
On August 31, Virginia Governor Mark Warner declared a state of emergency.
46		nytimes.com	web.archive.org
Due to Gaston's damaging effects across Virginia, President George W. Bush designated eight counties and four cities as a federal disaster area on September 3. The federal government provided about $30 million to the state, including $9.2 million in individual assistance.
47		fema.gov	web.archive.org		It might be better if you directly linkedthis FEMA page for "The federal government provided about $30 million to the state, including $9.2 million in individual assistance." I can't see where the $30 million comes from.
In the months following the floods, businesses in Shockoe Bottom began reopening, although it two years to restore everything. Residents created a fundraising drive to help businesses, few of which had flood insurance. The efforts raised more than $350,000, helped partly by a benefit concert held in November 2004 called the Back the Bottom Relief Concert.
48		govtech.com	web.archive.org
49		insurancejournal.com
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management launched a Spanish-language website in 2007, in part because of language barriers during the floods.
50		"En Español, Por Favor". Northwest Florida Daily News. Associated Press. October 6, 2004. p. 24. Re…	newspaperarchive.com
From 2008–2010, Richmond improved several flood mitigation projects, including three new sewage gates, 100 modified curb inlets, and the purchase and removal of several homes in a floodplain.
32	b	dcr.virginia.gov	web.archive.org
On September 15, President Bush also declared three South Carolina counties as disaster areas. The federal government provided about $12.8 million in public assistance.
51		fema.gov	web.archive.org

• All sources are reliable.Aviationwikiflight (talk)07:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of the 67 passages, 23 of them need attention (marked with), and a few others just need some small fixes/clarifications but aren't actionable (marked with and; I also added some recommendations to some of the "" icons).Aviationwikiflight (talk)07:45, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox is meant to summarize the article, so I was wondering why the hurricane's pressure of 985mb is only mentioned in the infobox and not anywhere else.Aviationwikiflight (talk)07:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• I've modified some citations, which I hope you don't mind. Other than that, there really isn't anything else. It's a well-written article that is broad, neutral, stable, and illustrated. Apart from some text-to-source inconsistencies, everything else looks good. If you want, I can put this GA nomination on hold.Aviationwikiflight (talk)07:42, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• C-Class Weather articles
• Low-importance Weather articles
• C-Class Tropical cyclone articles
• Low-importance Tropical cyclone articles
• WikiProject Tropical cyclones articles
• C-Class Atlantic hurricane articles
• Low-importance Atlantic hurricane articles
• WikiProject Weather articles
• Good article nominees
• Good article nominees on review