Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1850 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

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 Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2014 (diff).

1850 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Featured article candidates/1850 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article resurrects a series of long-forgotten hurricanes which collectively had their greatest impact on the northeastern United States. The 1850 season falls just outside the scope of the official hurricane database (1851–present), so the information in this article is more historical than it is scientific. After piecing together many nuggets of pertinent information, I've crafted what is to my knowledge the first true account of the "1850 Atlantic hurricane season". The article is important for a couple reasons. First, it serves as a reminder that cities like Baltimore and New York have long histories of hurricane impacts, so recent storms like Isabel and Sandy are not quite as incredible as one might believe. Also, some weather enthusiasts believe an expansion of the hurricane database might be in order, so there's a chance this article might prove useful to future hurricane researchers looking for sources. Since nobody on the planet remembers any of these storms (save perhaps a few tortoises), you might be interested to read the article and live vicariously through our ancestors. Thanks for taking a look! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – brief for the moment, as I'm a bit short of time. There are a couple of sentences in the lead you should look at:

"Although meteorological records are sparse and generally incomplete, three significant tropical cyclones affected the eastern United States, each causing some degree of damage." The sentence is unsatisfactory as it stands; it needs words such as "they indicate that" after "incomplete"
"However, it is impossible to confirm the origins of these events without modern reanalysis efforts." Does that mean it would be possible to confirm the origins of these events if someone used "modern reanalysis efforts", whatever these may be? If so, why has no one done so?

I will try to revisit later and take a more detailed look at this encouragingly concise article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a peek, and I look forward to additional suggestions for improvements. I've added "it is known that" to the first sentence you highlighted. After considering the reanalysis line for a while, I decided it was probably unnecessary and likely to prompt more questions than it answered... removed. –

Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with wording like "it is known" is that it positively invites someone to add ^{[by whom?]}. The wording I've suggested seems to meet the circumstances, and would avoid further comment. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments A few more, mainly minor nitpicks/suggestions:

"lost to a Smithsonian Institution fire" – wording niggles slightly: "in a..." seems more usual in this context.
I would delete the unnecessary words "additionally" and "highly"
"compromised" is an odd choice of word, meaning damaged or destroyed. "Downed" is used later on.
"multiple coaster vessels wrecked along the coast" → "were wrecked".
"far northern" – as a single adjective, possibly hyphenate?
"a hurricane was felt upwind" – I'm not familiar with hurricanespeak, but "felt" seems strange here. Also: suggest you delete "also" later in the same sentence.
"450 ft (150 yds) long and 60 ft (20 yds) high". The parentheses should give metric equivalents, not alternative imperial measures.
Everyday speech, e.g. "much damage", should not be in quotes.
What as the Osceola?
"precipitation" – why not "rain"?
The June/July "other storms" should receive a brief mention in the lead, since you have awarded them a short section in the main article
Well, that's where the Fragmented records... line comes in, but I can flesh that out a bit if necessary. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the article is an excellent example of its genre. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Just checking, did you have anything further to add to your review, Brian? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that Julian has fixed the above concerns (I haven't time to check but I assume he has) I have no problem with the prose. But with regard to sources, there is still a problem. Citation numbers have changed since I last looked at the article, and I find that what are now citations 5, 9, 22, 26 and 30 are all returning "page not found" messages. So something needs attending to there. Brianboulton (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Refs 3, 6, 19, 23, 27: the linked pages do not state the source
Completely willing to make necessary changes here, but I'm a bit confused to what you mean. The director of earth sciences (or some equally reputable title) at the university published accounts of the storm incorporating some info from David Ludlum's research, and he's listed as the |author= where appropriate. If the webpages aren't reliable enough, I could probably reduce the info to be in-line with Ludlum's book only. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5: how does the data on the linked page support the statement cited to it?
Replaced it with a more accessible source to be safe. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 21 and 22 appear to be showing each other's source: 21 is NOAA, 22 is NWS
Couldn't quite see the issue but I tinkered with ref 22 to try to make it more clear. They're both broadly NWS and NOAA, but I try to list whichever parent agencies are more applicable in the citation data. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented most of your suggestions, and have just a few questions about some of your sourcing concerns. Replies above. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment, above, about "page not found" links. Brianboulton (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've checked the edits since I last copyedited this. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the edits! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support now.

The second lede paragraph should probably have a specific mention of the date, rather than the generic "about a month later"
What does "leaving many ships in distress" mean? That they actually needed help? Were they just in the storm's path? SOS? Damaged?
"freshwater floodwaters" - redundant
When you mention " $100,000" - you should add USD, since that's the first instance of the currency. Also, that sentence mentions "downstream", but it doesn't specify a river. Why not just mention this bit when you mention the Connecticut impact?
" and leaving several people injured" --> "and injuring several people"
"swelled 20 ft (6 m), amplified to 40 ft (12 m) above normal..." - so what does "swelled" mean here? If it rose 20 feet, then how could it be 40 feet above normal? Or did it become 20 feet wider than normal? Or was it 20 feet in some areas, but upwards of 40 feet in other areas?
The last one. It swelled 20 feet above normal, which was amplified to 40 feet above normal in tight chasms (I guess). Any suggestions on how to change that up? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This source indicates there was a hurricane in October, and has the July storm in the Lesser Antilles as the early history of the one that later hit the US. There's also another September hurricane in there.
Cool source, thanks! That definitely ties up some loose ends. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This ref has some more estimated intensities for the three main hurricanes, FWIW.
Hmm. I hadn't seen that link either, but I'm not sure it has anything terribly useful to add, either. The FL hurricane was "maybe" (their word, not mine) a Cat 3, which isn't very solid info. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, it's a pretty good article. The prose is great, so consider these comments mostly minor before I'd be happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to this stuff now. Sorry for the delay. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful suggestions, thanks. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm happy to support now :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support unique article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review -- only a map that looks satisfactorily licensed, US origin and PD. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

404 Not Found - As Brian as noted above, I get 404 errors for citations 5,9,22,26 and 30. Graham Colm (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bah! They must have gone offline within the past few days. I'll figure something out this evening... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This should work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that made it easy. Thanks :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified links for all online sources as working so I think we can safely close this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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