Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1896 Cedar Keys hurricane/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2017 [1].

1896 Cedar Keys hurricane[edit]

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first FAC since 2015 is a rather substantial one. This hurricane—which caused nearly $10 million in damage, unprecedented at the time—was moving so fast that it assaulted Florida with a "tidal wave" in the early morning hours of Tuesday, September 29, and sent trees crashing down upon the Gettysburg Battlefield later that very same day. Along the way, it blew down every tree in a forest the size of Northern Island, caused a dam failure that swept away one community's downtown sector in just moments, toppled an elm tree planted by Abraham Lincoln, prompted weary storm victims to draw comparisons between airborne tin roofing and "giant vampires," and rained quite prodigiously over William McKinley and his front porch campaign—1,000 miles of mayhem in just 24 hours. The article itself uses a wide array of sources, both contemporary and modern, to craft what I believe is the most comprehensive account of the storm ever published. It recently sailed through its GA review, and while I'm confident there are no major flaws, I look forward to receiving further suggestions for improvement. Thanks in advance for any comments and reviews, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer (with help from User:Johnboddie). These are my edits. I liked the detailed accounts of damage, and the writing is lively. - Dank (push to talk) 02:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the edits and prose support! I'm glad you like the level of detail – it's tough to get that right when so many different areas are involved. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose as well. I made a half-dozen truly minor edits. I can't imagine that this article is not comprehensive, though it is highly readable and does not seem to me to bog down anywhere. Finetooth (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The helpful edits and prose review are much appreciated. Thank you! – Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the good article reviewer. The prose is excellent and the article itself represents the most comprehensive account of the storm anywhere on the internet. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your support and involvement in the review process. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review and table format review by Maile
  • Earwig's Copyvio detector shows no issues of concern. The tool's 5.7% chance of copyvio is based on the common term "East Coast of the United States".
  • Checklinks tool gives clean results, no dead links, no suspicious links, no links that fail to connect.
  • Sources used are primarily news accounts, government sources, and the American Meteorological Society. Two of the books used as references are university published, and one by Arcadia Publisher (local history interest publisher).
  • Although I can find Hurricanes and the Middle Atlantic States at Amazon and WorldCat, I find nothing on its publisher Blue Diamond Books.
  • Formatting on the citations looks really good.
  • Every paragraph sourced with several citations.
  • No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
  • Table looks good, is concise, generously cited on each item, and formatting is in accordance with WP:ACCESS#Tables.
@Juliancolton: is there any information you can give us about Blue Diamond book publishers? — Maile (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Hey, thanks for the source and formatting review, and the mostly clean bill of health. :) I get the impression that Blue Diamond Books no longer exists, as their website has gone offline, and an archived snapshot of the homepage doesn't really inspire much confidence ("new and aspiring authors with creative talents that are Entertaining, Engaging and Exciting"). Otherwise, I can't find much info, either. Putting the sketchy publisher aside, the author himself is frequently quoted as an authority on Mid-Atlantic hurricanes, and the work in question is occasionally cited by the National Weather Service, has been listed as a recommended book by the National Weather Center Library, served as the focus of a NOAA seminar, and so on. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Juliancolton: And Blue Diamond could have been his personal self- publishing endeavor. I don't find much about Rick Schwartz, except he seems to have a private blog and is on Facebook. Blogs and Facebook are not credibility on Wikipedia. Just having weather people quote him does not make him or the book verifiable by WP:RS. And, unfortunately, that's the bottom line, Wikipedia criteria. — Maile (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never said Facebook and blogs impart credibility. Even if it is self-published (which seems plausible, but I haven't been able to confirm it either way), WP:RSSELF says self-published works may be acceptable, depending on the context, if the author's work in the field has been been published by reliable, secondary sources. Wouldn't "having weather people quote him" actually satisfy that condition if the "weather people" are government meteorology agencies and such? None of the claims are contentious or likely to be disputed, as far as I can tell. I don't mean to be belligerent... I'm just trying to understand. The book has been a useful resource in a multitude of FAs I've written, and its reliability has never come into question until now. Of course, if it is an issue, it needs to be addressed and I'm glad you brought it up. I'm reasonably sure that many or even most of the references to the book could be replaced by more newspaper articles, and I obviously have no qualms about citing newspapers extensively. That said, I still like for the article to maintain at least the perception of some modern analyses being consulted instead of just eyewitness accounts from within the first few days of the event. I appreciate any further guidance you can offer. – Juliancolton | Talk 21:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know you're acting in good faith, and just want everything to be correct to pass FAC. I honestly cannot answer you on whether or not he is credible, because I have not run across this situation before. However, he is quoted by the NWS as a statistical source exactly where you have linked. I do believe this is one of those WP:IAR situations. This article is pretty well written and researched, and everything else on it is top notch. Very well done. — Maile (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your attention to this and for supporting. In the future I'll try to minimize use of that source where possible, just to be on the safe side. I don't mind the occasional IAR but I'd rather not make a habit of it! Regards, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Maile (talk) 22:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think this still needs an image review, which can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. In any case, it's worth leaving this open for a few more days to see if there is any further comment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review requested, thanks for the reminder. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

All images are PD but most could use some need attention to tagging. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PD tags have been diffused to their more specific forms. Thanks for the image review Hawkeye7! – Juliancolton | Talk 15:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1896_Cedar_Keys_hurricane/archive1&oldid=769863418"