The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2019 [1].

1900 Galveston hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is about the deadliest natural disaster in United States history and one of the most well known historical hurricanes. Formerly, the article was a FA, passing FAC all the way back on August 31, 2004! It was the oldest tropical cyclone-related FA, before WikiProject Tropical cyclones even existed. The article appeared as TFA in April 2005, before losing FA status in January 2008. As you can see from the old TFA version, standards have changed a lot, which is why I strongly favored the change in policy to allow an article to reappear as TFA. Today, the article is more broad in coverage, as there is much more info both in Galveston and everywhere else. It covers the major aspects of this very important storm. I am hoping to have this appear as TFA for a second time on either September 8 or 9 in 2020, for the 120th anniversary of the storm's Texas landfall.--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose at this time - have found several different issues but the most significant is failed verifiability spotchecking

  • Hardly any project articles use inflation anymore. I'm just going to delete that--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A lot of things pertaining to the storm's movement and location should've been cited with FN 4. I fixed that. I could only find mirror sites for "unsettled weather", "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)", and "as warm as bathwater". I think the best course of action would be for me to remove the quotations for the first, delete the second, and reword the third to simply say warm waters. I made the mistake of taking someone's word for it--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Still having difficulties with this footnote (now FN8) - for example I do not see "Additionally, [Antigua] reported a severe thunderstorm passing over, followed by the hot, humid calmness that often occurs after the passage of a tropical cyclone" in that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A grade 6–12 encyclopedia entry on Humidity doesn't seem the best source either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For whatever reason, Jason Rees removed that entire sentence while he made a few edits to the Meteorological history section. I was not having any luck with finding an alternative source anyway, even though I thought it would be rather easy to locate--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I found a few. Went with a source that's already used in the article--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did say official, so I guess I need an official source. I will use Blake et al.--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you say "most cited in official reports", you need multiple official reports, or a single source that makes that claim. Citing Blake just demonstrates that that's the number used in that particular report. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is still an issue. Specific examples include linking atmosphere pressure twice in the first section and mix of "modern-day" and "modern day". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I ordered them based on when they appeared in the article. Does it need to be done in a different way, such as alphabetical order of last names?--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As we're demonstrating now with adding/moving sources, that system doesn't always stay up to date - Frank and Colby are now cited before Baird, which remains the first on the list. Alphabetical would be easier to maintain. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I went ahead and assumed you wanted me to do that. So it was already done before you responded--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I accidentally deleted the source for that, but I found it again--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Upon viewing other sources, it would probably be better to say that the channel was being dredged by 1909 and opened in 1914, which I do have a source for--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Are you just asking me to look or do you have examples? I did have Isaac Cline's report from 1900 published on a website in 2004. But then I realized that it was archived in the MWR for September 1900. I'm not seeing any problems related to this otherwise--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was way easier to find a source than I thought it would be--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Better, but something like a notice of a book signing doesn't really indicate significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not quite understanding what needs to be done. There are some irregularly and overlinked newspapers and organizations. I went ahead and fixed that. But the information I am using is based on what info the source chose to include. Some sources, even those hosted by the same website, don't give the same amount of information. Compare FN 75 and and FN 132, for example. They are both from Galveston County Daily News, but the source for the former does not provide an author's name, while the latter does. If you're wondering why some newspapers have locations and others don't, the reason is because when I did the FAC for Hurricane Andrew, somebody asked me to include the locations for newspapers with names that wouldn't make the location obvious. For example, most people wouldn't know that The Chelsea Herald is from Randolph, Vermont, but I wouldn't need say where NYT is from.--12george1 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sometimes sources omit information, that's fine. But compare for example FNs 79 and 139 - these are the same source, yet have different formatting. That shouldn't happen. Other issues are just errors - for example, FN125 has a link that doesn't link to anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I took care of these. But "more work needed" suggests possibly more problems--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are. Further examples include FNs 23 vs 41 (both the same source but formatted differently), and FN 8 (both website and publisher are smushed into the publisher parameter). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I could've sworn that FN 23 needed an archive link. Maybe my internet connection was bad that day. Fixed both problems--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed. It's a lot easier to find a citation if I remove the claim that it was second to Galveston--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's sort of implied in my opinion, but I found something else--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • He did issue a hurricane warning without permission, but I agree that the "supporters argue" part isn't really in there--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Given that my own spotchecks are still turning up problems, I'm not prepared to change my declaration at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you include the rest of that sentence, technically the source does say that. But I should provide clarity. Only parts not protected by the seawall flooded--12george1 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Jason Rees

  • You're talking about the HURDAT vs non-HURDAT stuff, right? There was a bit of a mix up when I deleted a few sentences because the info couldn't be verified with Neil Frank. I forgot to move some of the citations accordingly. I put them in their proper places, but I can still do what you're saying if you want me to--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes please do so since as I said it would be cleaner and easier for the reader imo.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In addition to a few sentences being deleted because they weren't in the Frank citation, there was some other stuff moved because it wasn't exactly MH related. There was stuff like watches and warnings, for example, which belong in the Preparations section. So I'm not sure what else I should say, aside from your request that I add more between August 30 and September 2--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I added a source for that. I want to keep the ships part to give the readers a bit more context (but not too much) about how hurricanes were observed and tracked back then. So I merged both sentences but cut out the wireless telegraphy part--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok it might be better to reorder them for example: The system is believed to have started as a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa, however, the storm's origins are unclear. This is because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists, with ships reports being the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes. I dropped the Cape Verde bit since I don't think that all TC's that develop off the African coast from TW's are Cape Verde hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I would argue that HURDAT superseeds Franks book here and that it was a tropical storm, not a tropical depression or a wave as Frank implies.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's really not much. The storm entered the Caribbean and tracked westward to the south of Puerto Rico. That's about it. But ok--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's really hardly anything between those dates. Frank says nothing. Partagás mentions two ship reports, neither of which are really worth mentioning imo. HURDAT has the storm strengthening by only 5 knots on August 29.--12george1 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have tweaked the sentences concerned so that we can move on with the review. For now, I don't think that it's worth mentioning about the Antigua thunderstorm for now.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am surprised that the Partagás source isn't used in the MH, as it contains some crucial details which would give the MH a bit more love and tell the story. In particular, I read that during September 1, Father Gangoiti of the Belen College Observatory started to talk to the press about the system. A quick google shows that this is the Cuban meteorologist that you mention later in the article issuing warnings. As a result, I would like to see some information added to the MH from Partagas please.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In conjunction with my last comment this paragraph needs some love/reworking: The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favourable conditions – including warm sea surface temperatures – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[11] The Weather Bureau ignored reports from Cuban meteorologists because they expected the storm to curve northeast along the Atlantic coast of North America.[12] Forecasters at the Weather Bureau even began stating, inaccurately, that the cyclone was moving northeastward in the Atlantic. However, a region of high pressure had pushed the storm to the west into the Gulf of Mexico.[12]Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Its better but it still needs some tweaking in order to make it flow. What im thinking is scrapping the first sentence and opening the second paragraph by talking about Father Gangoiti. Then note that the system continued to move north-northwest and passed to the south of Puerto Rico, before it made landfall near Baní in the Dominican Republic, early on September 2. Also scrap the winds. Keep the 3rd sentence as is for now as it is a decent line that helps move the story along. I think you should combine the fourth and fifth sentences to say something along the lines of "The system made landfall on Cuba near Santiago de Cuba during September 3, before it moved slowly west-northward across the island and emerged into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm on September 5. You should consider ending the paragraph there.
  • Within the next paragraph, I feel that we should expand on this disagreement, between Father Gangoiti and the USWB a little bit. Try something along the lines of "As the system emerged into the Florida Straits, Father Gangoiti observed a big halo around the moon which did not dissipate while the sky turned red deep red and cirrus clouds were moving northwards. This showed him that the tropical storm had intensified and that the prevailing winds were moving the system towards the Texas Gulf Coast. However, the United States Weather Bureau disagreed with this forecast, as they expected the system to recurve and make landfall in Florida before impacting the American East Coast. An area of high pressure over the Florida Keys, ultimately moved the system north-westwards into the Gulf of Mexico where favourable conditions allowed the storm to intensify further.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not so easy to locate that information in Partagas. In fact, I could not find where it talked about a deep red sky or the prevailing winds. However, much of that information can easily be found on page 134 of Larson's book. By the way, Gangoite (not Gangoiti) is the correct spelling. His name was Lorenzo Gangoite--12george1 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I should have been clearer and stated that I found the information within the Al Roker Reference and I cant read Larson's book so im taking your word for it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Random thought is it worth replacing your HURDAT reference with IBTRACS, so that the data is more accessible/verifiable?Jason Rees (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like using template references, but I also agree with what you're saying. So I will do that--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks. I like using template references as well, but more recently I have been thinking it is easier and better to use IBTRACS. However, I am not a fan of citing that paper and would rather cite the data directly back to the IBTRACS project rather than the AMS. As a result, I have tweaked your reference and will look into templating the reference.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A ship reported the storm to the northwest of Key West, Florida, on September 6. -> Get rid of this sentence please as i dont think it adds anything.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Later that day, the ship Louisiana encountered the hurricane after departing New Orleans, Louisiana. Captain T. P. Halsey estimated wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h) -> This should be merged with the previous paragraph and open with "During September 6, the Louisana encountered the hurricane, whose Captain T. P. Halsey estimated that the system had wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I will add the local time, but I would rather not remove the sustained winds. Isn't the point of an MH section to include details such as that? That would be like if you told me to remove the landfall wind speed in the FAC for Hurricane Andrew--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have personally never included landfall windspeeds in my articles and it cant be a project standard since we rarely have only one sustained windspeed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The landfall point was actually almost directly south of Houston, but I will do it--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You have a point there, it was more south of Houston than southeast.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it should be kept based on the same line of reasoning with the MH landfall wind speed, so I used IBTRACS--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pressure at peak is one of those things that I would mention if its notable enough but ok.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I mentioned it later in the article, but I guess I could remove it here--12george1 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There were warnings in other places, which I added to the article--12george1 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regarding the background section if it really is needed then I would suggest that you tell the reader straight off the bat, that the City of Galveston was formally founded during 1839 and that it had previously survived numerous storms.
  • I would then suggest that you tell the reader that it was a booming town (Whatever that means) and explain that the 1900 census showed that the population of Galveston was 37,788 which was an increase from 29,084 people recorded in the 1890 Census.
  • I came up with a slight variation of your ideas because I thought it would be better to not fragment the stuff about how they thought a strong hurricane would not strike the island. I hope you like it. I also added a link for boomtown. Maybe that term is used quite a bit more in here in the US than over there?--12george1 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support as GA reviewer. I'm surprised at the depth of comments so far. I support this nomination for FAC on my usual merit. The article is the best resource in the world for this event. 12George1 has spent countless hours on the article, and I think his work speaks for itself. I can't speak for other reviewers, but it appears that he's more than capable and willing to address any comments from other users regarding this nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Since we have outstanding opposition from Nikkimaria on the basis of failed verification checks, would you be willing to carry out some additional spot-checks of cited sources for verification? --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do! I'll get to it over the next few days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I used a random number generator from 1-150 (given the number of references). I did this 15 times to account (randomly) for 10% of all citations.

Overall, the citations were reliable, independent, and generally covered the content as described in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've worked on all of your comments, wherever action was required--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose from Hurricane Noah[edit]

The article seems to be rather biased towards Galveston in the aftermath. I get most of the impact occurred there, but there isn't any mention of recovery efforts anywhere other than Galveston. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I will look, but I likely won't find much. I think my best bet would be other places in Galveston County and the surrounding counties--12george1 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Were you able to find anything? NoahTalk 19:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks better. NoahTalk 23:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More