Talk:1949 Texas hurricane

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1949 Texas hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next several days, and then I will return and put my comments here. In the meantime, I will be performing noncontroversial copyedits. I will not fail the article just because it is not "completed" after 7 days; however, I would like to see work or a note explaining that there will be an absence from editing. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Review as of 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• Overall, this article looks good and needs only a few minor tweaks!

• Consider using the {{US$}} template for the total damage and some of the other numbers, as it will put the cost in today's dollars. (I am assuming that the costs given are in 1949 dollars.)
• In the lead, it claims that four storms were known to cross from the Pacific to the Atlantic. It needs to be verified in the body or to be cited.

• Thanks for the review. Fixed the lead and added an inflation figure to the most important damage total. Juliancolton (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I believe this passes the GA criteria now! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Look like it meets WP:WIAGA!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Missing 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods?

I came across the 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods, which seem to have been caused by the precursor to this hurricane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

2024–25 Good Article Reassessment

I chose this article since I knew there were issues previously. The article was reviewed in 2011, which was before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis even reached 1949.

• For starters, the article does establish notability, both as a deadly weather event, also as a rare crossover from Atlantic to Pacific, and it being the last hurricane to affect a major U.S. city for 34 years. So that's good. Now applying the GA criteria...

Well-written/verifiable

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The opening sentence is on the bland side.
• "$10 million (1949 USD$, 123 million 2024 USD). " - inconsistent formatting
• " It is relatively rare for a tropical cyclone to cross from the Pacific into the Atlantic, or vice versa, and this storm is among less than a dozen known to have officially done so." -

• That does not appear to be accurate according to the source listed. Even Wikipedia's own article on the crossover cyclones has more than 12.

• "equivalent to upper-end Category 2—almost Category 3—intensity" - no mention of Saffir-Simpson scale
• There's also no mention of the longstanding belief that the hurricane was originally assessed to have been a Category 4 hurricane, until Atlantic hurricane reanalysis
• " The storm is one of a relatively few October hurricanes to either impact or make landfall in Texas." - the total is five, according to List of Atlantic hurricanes, but I don't have a proper source offhand
• "Two deaths were attributed to the storm: a resident of Port Neches who was electrocuted, and a young woman who drowned in Matagorda Bay." - this almost feels like an afterthought, being at the end of the impact section, even though that seems like the most significant form of impact.

Broad

• There is a lot more from the reanalysis that could help flesh out the MH. For instance, its origins (coming from Hurricane 9's remnants, plus a tropical wave).
• The lead, and the article by extension, doesn't talk about the 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods at all. Considering it was a tropical cyclone while moving through the country from September 28th to the 29th, and that the 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods has sources mentioning that time period as the start of a period of heavy rainfall leading to deadly floods, then I think we can word something in the impact section that avoids being original research, while also mentioning the storm's role. That would also cut down on US-bias by mentioning more impacts out of the country.
• Texas seems to have a fair amount of information, although there isn't much depth. There weren't even any mentions of power outages or damaged houses.
• Also, there isn't anything outside of Texas, as far as impact. Anything in Louisiana where there was heavy rainfall? Illinois NWS mentions heavy rainfall in the southern portion of the state, and WPC has a rainfall map for the hurricane. There was a lot of rainfall in Arkansas, so there could've been effects there.
• Following the storm, thousands of automobiles in six states were affected by widespread peeling and blistering paint. The blisters, usually concentrated on the hoods, fenders and tops of vehicles, contained a small amount of water, and peeling paint was also reported on one Shreveport home. Most of the cars damaged were parked outside, and sheltered automobiles were unaffected. Although total damage from the phenomenon may have reached thousands of dollars, experts were unable to identify its cause immediately following the storm.

• That seems like excessive detail, relative to other material that seems to be missing.

Neutral/Stable/Illustrated

• Yup. The article doesn't present any signficant bias.
• The article has been around for quite some time, it is stable.
• The article has two images, both are in the public domain. I don't believe the track map has been updated with the new colors, however.

Citations

• They look good. The only small thing is that the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center is now the Weather Prediction Center.

I'll leave the review open for seven days, and inform the Wikiproject, the original nominator, and the page for the project reassessment drive. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

1949 Texas hurricane

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I chose this article since I knew there were issues previously. The article was reviewed in 2011, which was before the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis even reached 1949.

• For starters, the article does establish notability, both as a deadly weather event, also as a rare crossover from Atlantic to Pacific, and it being the last hurricane to affect a major U.S. city for 34 years. So that's good. Now applying the GA criteria...

Well-written/verifiable

the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

• The opening sentence is on the bland side.
• "$10 million (1949 USD$, 123 million 2024 USD). " - inconsistent formatting
• " It is relatively rare for a tropical cyclone to cross from the Pacific into the Atlantic, or vice versa, and this storm is among less than a dozen known to have officially done so." -

• That does not appear to be accurate according to the source listed. Even Wikipedia's own article on the crossover cyclones has more than 12.

• "equivalent to upper-end Category 2—almost Category 3—intensity" - no mention of Saffir-Simpson scale
• There's also no mention of the longstanding belief that the hurricane was originally assessed to have been a Category 4 hurricane, until Atlantic hurricane reanalysis
• " The storm is one of a relatively few October hurricanes to either impact or make landfall in Texas." - the total is five, according to List of Atlantic hurricanes, but I don't have a proper source offhand
• "Two deaths were attributed to the storm: a resident of Port Neches who was electrocuted, and a young woman who drowned in Matagorda Bay." - this almost feels like an afterthought, being at the end of the impact section, even though that seems like the most significant form of impact.

Broad

• There is a lot more from the reanalysis that could help flesh out the MH. For instance, its origins (coming from Hurricane 9's remnants, plus a tropical wave).
• The lead, and the article by extension, doesn't talk about the 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods at all. Considering it was a tropical cyclone while moving through the country from September 28th to the 29th, and that the 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods has sources mentioning that time period as the start of a period of heavy rainfall leading to deadly floods, then I think we can word something in the impact section that avoids being original research, while also mentioning the storm's role. That would also cut down on US-bias by mentioning more impacts out of the country.
• Texas seems to have a fair amount of information, although there isn't much depth. There weren't even any mentions of power outages or damaged houses.
• Also, there isn't anything outside of Texas, as far as impact. Anything in Louisiana where there was heavy rainfall? Illinois NWS mentions heavy rainfall in the southern portion of the state, and WPC has a rainfall map for the hurricane. There was a lot of rainfall in Arkansas, so there could've been effects there.
• Following the storm, thousands of automobiles in six states were affected by widespread peeling and blistering paint. The blisters, usually concentrated on the hoods, fenders and tops of vehicles, contained a small amount of water, and peeling paint was also reported on one Shreveport home. Most of the cars damaged were parked outside, and sheltered automobiles were unaffected. Although total damage from the phenomenon may have reached thousands of dollars, experts were unable to identify its cause immediately following the storm.

• That seems like excessive detail, relative to other material that seems to be missing.

Neutral/Stable/Illustrated

• Yup. The article doesn't present any signficant bias.
• The article has been around for quite some time, it is stable.
• The article has two images, both are in the public domain. I don't believe the track map has been updated with the new colors, however.

Citations

• They look good. The only small thing is that the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center is now the Weather Prediction Center.

I'll leave the review open for seven days, and inform the Wikiproject, the original nominator, and the page for the project reassessment drive. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:1949 Texas hurricane; see that page for attribution. Noah, AA^Talk 23:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

This is just a notification that the GAR would officially start today since it's now past the one week mark. This page was simply launched earlier due to concerns raised elsewhere. Noah, AA^Talk 05:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have made some recent changes (e.g. [1], [2]) that hopefully have addressed many (but not all) of the aforementioned qualms, particularly regarding the storm's post-reanalysis synopsis and impacts in Guatemala (where verifiable). Additional changes to address some concerns with the lede and impact coverage are likely forthcoming, but I welcome other contributors to pitch in to bring the article up to par. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @TheAustinMan:! With that, the article is kept as a GA. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.