Talk:1863 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 13:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article shortly. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and formatting

I find the first sentence a little dubious, given the highly uncertain nature of seasonal statistics from this era. I know you go on to qualify this claim, but this is only the 13th year in HURDAT ("most active in 13 years" isn't hugely notable to start with), and we genuinely have no idea how many storms actually during these years. I'd try to find a better opening hook.

I put something less dubious, but it's probably less interesting as well--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually more interesting and relevant. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were also seven recorded hurricanes - the "also" implies seven hurricanes on top of nine tropical storms.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

named after a ship sunk by the storm - the USS Amanda (1856) article says the ship didn't sink, but ran aground and was broken up by the crew.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

13 days earlier than Hurricane Alma in 1966, the second earliest on record. - I dunno... "13 days earlier than the second earliest" is just too weaselly for my taste. Maybe go for something broader, like "made landfall exceptionally early in the season, on May 28" (and follow suit later in the article)?

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do something similar in the "Other systems" section? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda also holds the distinction of being the only known hurricane landfall in the United States in the month of May. - going back to the last point, Alma is only the second-earliest after a 1825 hurricane that made landfall... in May. Either keep superlatives confined to HURDAT years or don't, but be consistent.

Can I add something like "...since HURDAT records began in 1851"? From like the 1960s and beyond, we have things such as "during the satellite era", "since the satellite era began", etc.--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead you say Amanda was "documented in 2013 by Christopher Landsea and Cary Mock", but later that it was "based on analysis from Michael Chenoweth and Cary Mock in 2013."

Oops--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the "total depressions" field from the infobox.

Done--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On September 18, two schooners were capsized in the Lower Potomac River, crops were destroyed in the area - syntax issues.

Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Content

I'm not sure it's appropriate to include ACE in such an old season article. Records are very much incomplete, so trying to precisely quantify total seasonal activity is misleading, and since no sources discuss ACE for this particular season, it's bordering on OR. Further, the boilerplate ACE description doesn't work here... 1863 had neither advisories nor tropical depressions, so the last sentence of the lead doesn't make sense.

I think the ACE should be kept. It's not like I'm trying to make a comparison to a modern season, like 1863 vs. 2009. Also, can it really be considered borderline OR if it is cited with the same source as all the other seasons where the ACE total is mentioned? But I did remove that sentence about advisories--12george1 (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to cite HURDAT for ACE calculations, but only if ACE has been discussed in secondary sources as being a viable metric for the season in question. You say "the season's activity was reflected with an ACE rating of 50", but note that several storms are probably missing, and the tracks that do exist are all approximate and sometimes even totally arbitrary. As a result, the ACE of 50 units doesn't reflect seasonal activity, but merely the limits of current reanalysis skill. You're trying to precisely quantify something that's loosely extrapolated from just a handful of data points. I think that fails verifiability. Thoughts? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little concerned that there are no newspaper sources for storm impacts. At a quick glance, Newspapers.com has some good stuff for TS 6 (Charleston, Mid-Atlantic, etc.) and the May system (example). I don't think anything major has been omitted, but more research would definitely help.

I got a little lazy with that because Partagas cites newspapers for some of his info, but of course there always could be stuff he misses--12george1 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least three ships docked near the southeastern end of Bermuda sustained damage. - I don't see this supported in the source. It says several ships went to Bermuda after being damaged at sea somewhere southeast of the island chain, but not that they were docked at Bermuda.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does ref 7 really support all that info for Hurricane 3?

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, it needs quite a bit of work, but nothing that should take more than a week. Placing it on-hold for now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the latest changes, I'm confident the article now meets the criteria, and as such I'm listing it as a good article. Nice work! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]