Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1916 Texas 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [1].

1916 Texas hurricane

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 1910s were not a kind decade to the South Texas coast. Four hurricanes made landfall along the same 18-mile (30 km) section of coast (all in Kenedy County, Texas). The 1916 Texas hurricane tells the tale of the strongest among this onslaught—a quickly moving Category 4 hurricane that dealt a heavy blow to the region, as well as to Jamaica three days earlier. I believe that this article represents the most comprehensive summary on this storm available, and look forward to addressing your comments and suggested improvements. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 23:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support/Image check (figured I should review given my own FAC)

  • A Category 4 hurricane upon landfall in Texas, it was one of the strongest tropical cyclones in United States history. - eh was it? You mention that it was the strongest since 1886, but that's only 40 years. In the time since then, the US was hit by 4 C5 hurricanes, in addition to several other C4 hurricanes.
  • "No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds, and coconut and cocoa trees also sustained losses." - brilliant writing in the first half. The second half after the comma is rather lackluster - so why not split it into its own sentence? That reads stronger
  • "Railroads and other public utilities were disrupted across the region and widespread power outages left many areas in darkness." - this feels clunky. I feel like the last part about power outages could be added on after "across the region, with widespread power outages." Of course power outages leaves darkness
  • "Eight locations set 24-hour rainfall records and the deluge wrought havoc on military camps along the U.S.-Mexico border, forcing 30,000 garrisoned militiamen to evacuate." - I suggest splitting off the rainfall bit, and add Harlingen's rainfall total. That way the lead mentions winds, storm surge, and the rainfall total
  • The 1916 Texas hurricane "followed an average course for the type of August hurricanes that passes [sic] through the Yucatán Channel" - you need to attribute this quote
  • "It was the strongest hurricane in the 1916 Atlantic hurricane season." - I feel like this should be added when you mention the peak intensity, not at the beginning of the MH
  • "a vessel recorded 55-mph (89 km/h) winds" - why the dash? Ditto later w "75-mph (121 km/h)" in Texas section. Is that a thing?
  • What was the basis for the peak intensity?
  • "Weakening ensued as the storm quickly progressed farther inland through South and into West Texas" - the grammar feels weird, having South capitalized. I think you can cut "through South", so it would read "progressed farther inland and into West Texas". JMHO
  • Watch for duplicate links for Jamaica, Kingston, and Kingsville
  • "Rough surf generated by the strong winds sank and grounded vessels and lighters on the shores of Kingston Harbour" - ehhhh
  • "Another set of Southern Pacific traincars was readied at Seabrook in case additional evacuations were required." - I feel like this should be earlier, when you first mentioned the rail
  • "The coastal steamer Pilot Boy sank to the hurricane's seas" - is "to" the right word here?
  • "Damage from the hurricane was inflicted over a wide expanse of southwestern Texas" - I imagine southwestern Texas as inland. Is this proper Texasing?
  • "£21,000" - add link for currency
  • Can you find the source for the impact pics in the impact section? Maybe also the page number for the rainfall map? Otherwise, the images are good (cited, usable)

Great prose in the article. This is definitely one of the best articles WPTC has, especially for one such a long time ago. I hope none of my comments are too difficult. It shouldn't take much for me to support this. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments; I've utilized most of your suggested fixes, moving around a few ideas and rephrasing a few sentences. As for the dashes, those are in the same vein as "twenty-year-old", as an example. References to "Southwestern" Texas and "Southeastern" Texas are always kind of weird given how the state funnels down to a point in its southern extremities. Southeast Texas is pretty established in the state. On the other hand, no one really refers to a "Southwestern Texas", so I've just replaced it with southern Texas, which decently reflects the region of interest. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 02:02, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support cowboy, yeehaw! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & Image review by Shearonink

[edit]

All the images have valid permissions/sources. All the images have alt-text. As Hurricanehink states above, images are good. TheAustinMan re the impact photos' source/sources - so far as I can tell the sources for the impact pics are stated pretty down deep on the Commons File pages. Conditional support pending other areas pass review. 00:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Shearonink (talk)[reply]

Support Comments by TropicalAnalystwx13

[edit]
  • "No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds." - This reads a little too sensationalist to me. Can we tone it down?
  • "According to the U.S. Weather Bureau" - Wikilink Weather Bureau?
  • "Air pressure bottomed out at 1006 mbar (hPa; 29.71 inHg) on the island." - Do we really care?
  • "In terms of pressure, the 1916 Texas hurricane stronger than any other landfalling tropical cyclone in the United States since 1886." - Missing a word.
  • "Communications between Kingston and other parishes were cut off for 48 hours after intense winds brought down telegraph and telephone lines,[14][25] making the dissemination of damage reports in Jamaica increasingly difficult;[26] the strongest sustained winds reached 72 mph (116 km/h) in Kingston, attended by higher gusts estimated at 85 mph (137 km/h)." - This is probably sufficient to split into two sentences.
  • "Due to the storm's initially small size and the lack of data concerning it, the Weather Bureau lamented that "the location of the center of the storm was [...] a very unsatisfactory manner"," - Comma inside quotation.
  • "Galveston residents evacuated via interurban routes and special trains for the mainland as seas began to rise, filling railcars to capacity" - Maybe rearrange this sentence so that it reads "Galveston resident evacuated for the mainland via..."?
  • "At Corpus Christi, approximately 45 mi (72 km) northeast of the storm's point of landfall" - This should be to the nearest 5, right?
  • "winds reached at least 90 mph (140 km/h)" - 90 mph should be 150 km/h given kn to km/h conversion.
    • I've left it as is. The value was originally reported in mph and not knots. So long as measurements were originally published in mph (as was the case with some of the other measurements), they were converted directly to km/h without backtracking to knots first. The HURDAT metadata (ref name "Metadata") lists this as 78 knots. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thunderstorms and squalls began affecting the city on the morning of August 18" - Link squalls
  • "preceding the onset of hurricane-force winds that evening; the winds diminished to light winds by the following evening." - Can we reword this to avoid repetition with both "winds" and "evening"?
  • "Port O'Connor and surrounding locales were impacted by 75-mph (121 km/h) winds" - Rounding and why is it hyphenated?
  • "located 15 mi (24 km) south of Kingsville" - rounding?
  • "Farther north in Galveston, the hurricane produced 50 mph (80 km/h)" - 50 mph is 85 km/h based on kn to km/h conversion.
  • "while 68-mph (109 km/h) winds swept through San Antonio." - rounding and hyphen again?
  • "(equivalent to $42 million in 2019)." - Says who?

Overall, a very well written and read article with only a few complaints from me. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments! I've made most of these suggested changes. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Supporting. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Here are my initial comments.

  • No banana plantation was left unscathed by the hours-long onslaught of strong winds - So it actually hit every single plantation? This seems a bit hyperbolic.
    • I'm sure the reality differed, and that at least some banana plantations that held their ground. However, it was indeed the assessment of the American consulate in Jamaica that the entire banana crop is reported ruined. Unfortunately I can't directly link to local reporting from The Daily Gleaner, but they note that hardly a single healthy banana tree has survived the blow (August 18, p.1), that crops suffer[ed] at every place heard from (August 17, p. 2). For realism's sake it may be wise to reduce the scope of that sentence, but at least from the sources available there isn't much to separate either most plantations being damaged or all plantations being damaged. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The southern parishes saw the severest effects, incurring extensive damage to crops and buildings - This needs to be rephrased. The hurricane incurred extensive damage, not the parishes.
  • Aggregate property damage across Texas reached $1.8 million, and 20 people lost their lives. - Would it be better to say "were killed" rather than "lost their lives"?
  • s that passes [sic] through the Yucatán Channel - what was the expected phrasing?
  • In terms of pressure, the 1916 Texas hurricane was stronger than any other landfalling tropical cyclone in the United States since 1886.[9] - the following paragraph might need to be split, because the transition between this and the next sentence is quite rough.
    • I think it's better that all the information about the storm's characteristics when it struck Texas are kept together. I've chosen to smooth the transition a bit to the next sentence to make it a little less choppy. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems like I forgot about this one, but it's a good thing Nova Crystallis pinged me.

Starting from 'Preparations and impact:

  • Crossing the Lesser Antilles from August 12–13 - usually the wording is "from August 12 to August 13" or "in August 12–13"
  • A warning noting the likelihood of hurricane-force winds was issued for the Yucatán Channel near Cuba's Guanahacabibes Peninsula on August 16,[12] though ships resumed course to Cuban and Central American ports when the storm bypassed Cuba with no ill effects.[13] - So, about the first part of this sentence. Ships were stopped? If so, this has to be indicated beforehand.
  • on the night of August 15,[14] killing 17 people - it seems weird to have two numerals in such proximity. "Seventeen people"?
  • the overall damage toll was estimated at $10 million,[17] (equivalent to $235 million in 2019).[18] - A comma is not needed before a parenthesis, usually
  • three other tropical cyclones monitored by the agency in August 1916. On August 18 - also seems weird to have "August" repeated in such close succession...
  • advising residents between Cameron County and Calhoun County by telegraph and telephone of the hurricane's imminent approach - Did this advice apply to Cameron and Calhoun counties as well, or just the counties in between?
  • safer buildings of the business district, finding safe havens - "safe" is repeated in close succession here and "safe haven" seems a bit redundant.
  • between $250,000–$500,000 - this should be "between %250,000 and $500,000" or just "$250,000–500,000". What is the inflation?
  • Don't think I've heard of the word unroofed before...
  • U.S. Army tents were flattened by the storm,[46] injuring four militiamen.[66] - this goes from passive to active voice
  • $300,000 - another inflation needed

That's it for now. epicgenius (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional comments. These were mostly sensible changes, so I've made them accordingly. As for unroofed, that appears to be a common enough word with some recent usage. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm happy to support this now. epicgenius (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JC

[edit]
  • Support – I undertook an informal peer review of the article prior to its arrival here, and also did some light copyediting of my own (see here for changes made). All of the concerns I had were addressed during that process. The article is well-written, thoroughly researched, and organized in a sensible manner. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake

[edit]
  • There doesn't seem to be a relevant conversion for the damage to Jamaica as there is for Texas. If 1.8 million is 40 odd million today, then 10 million to Jamaica must be what? 400 million? Seems to be worth highlighting. Similarly the inflation template could do with being present in the lede as well.
  • Only one website reference is archived as far as I can see. This IMO significantly harms the longevity of the articles reliability.
    • I've gone ahead and applied IABot on the article to archive available links. Most of the links are from Newspapers.com, which are generally stable and tied to something physical (the newspapers themselves), but for the more unstable links (especially the ones published exclusively online and not associated with a DOI), archive links have been added. –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else seems to be in order, all the images are public domain. Prose was generally engaging though admittedly hurricanes are not my area of entertainment, but I have opted to review this as an exchange of reviewing favours with Hurricanehink.
  • Were there any actions taken to help prevent a reoccurrence of such mass damage? Changes in building, planning, preparations, etc? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the news sources, the areas affected didn't suffer long and recovered after fairly routine repairs. It would be a later hurricane in 1919 that shocked the building codes and protocols of the region. Thanks for the comments! –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is it worth adding a concluding sentence confirming such? "The areads effected were able to recover in a relatively short time frame following routine repairs. It would not be until the 1919 Florida Keys hurricane that building codes and emergency protocols for the region were reviewed and updated". Something to that affect, if you have the sources to say that of course. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That concluding line does have a ring to it, but there's not really enough sources that explicitly establish the quick recovery (that was my assumption based on the lack of newspapers covering the aftermath), and I'm not sure if there are sources to make the 1919 connection in this article on its own. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 04:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Did I miss a source review for reliability/formatting? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source spotchecks

  • "allocated £21,000 to relief efforts" is not in given source
  • "the storm bypassed Cuba with no ill effects" is not in given source
  • "forcing police to escort pedestrians off the streets" - don't see this at given source
  • "iron-sheet roofs were torn away from sawmills" - this appears to be conflating two different statements at the given source, the iron-sheet roofs were on the lumber sheds not the sawmills
  • "a very unsatisfactory manner" is a misquotation - the source says "matter"
  • "as was the case with three other tropical cyclones" - source seems to refer to three total cyclones, not three other
  • "A volunteer force with about 100 automobiles was organized on the afternoon of August 18 to move women and children from the vulnerable outskirts of Corpus Christi to the safer buildings of the business district" is too closely paraphrasing from the source - compare "A volunteer brigade of about 100 automobiles was organized, and these were busy from 1 till 5 pm in bringing women and children from the outskirts of the city to the safer buildings of the business section". Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made adjustments in accordance with the above spot checks. A few of these drew information from other footnotes present in the article, so I've added those footnotes closer to the relevant information. In that vein, I was wondering if someone with access to NewspaperArchive could add links to the relevant clippings for the articles from that database, as the institutional access I'm using doesn't have that feature. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 21:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query to @Nikkimaria: - do you think the problems you found warrant a full source spot check or were they mostly minor? --Ealdgyth (talk) 23:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, think at least some additional checks are needed - will see if anyone can provide clippings links as requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria and TheAustinMan: I am here with the goods.

That's it for the NewspaperARCHIVE clips, let me know if you need further zoom-ins on some of these clips. Probably should link them in the references too, now it's available. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the ones you couldn't find were off by a few days (though their issue numbers and other information were correct). I've amended these in the article. –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to link these clippings. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, how are things looking now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forcing police to escort pedestrians off the streets" - this is not consistent with what the source says
  • "Substantial losses befell crops in Saint Catherine Parish, including severe damage to banana and coconut trees between Kingston and Spanish Town" - source mentions that "some" coconut trees are severely damaged, but think equating it with the banana devastation is overstating things
  • "The eastern banana-growing belt sustained its worst losses since the 1903 Jamaica hurricane" - not consistent with what the source says. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Pinging on behalf of the nominator. NoahTalk 22:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikki, if you have a sec to revisit, like to try and close this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I struck my oppose based on the more recent checks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2020 (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/1916_Texas_hurricane/archive1&oldid=959749745"