Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Hazel/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 Karanacs 01:36, 14 April 2010 [1].

Hurricane Hazel

[edit]

Hurricane Hazel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Maxim(talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This isn't your usual hurricane article: you see, in 1954, Hurricane Hazel had the audacity to make a trip, with the strength of Category 1 hurricane, to Toronto (that's Canada, to the west of upstate New York) and cause havoc there. It also washed out western Haiti and the Carolinas' coast in particular. That was sufficient to retire the storm's name. The article itself became a GA in June, but I've recently done some considerable expansion, and I think it's ready for FAC. Many thanks for Juliancolton for giving it a quick copyedit, Risker who took some pictures, and to Martin Taylor, who donated his pictures, taken the day after Hazel, under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Maxim(talk) 02:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • first impression its looking ok, last part of the Meteorological history section is awkward After leaving Toronto, the storm continued into northern(through?) Ontario and(into?) northern Quebec, and lost(loosing?) most of its remaining power over sparsely populated areas. Hazel fully dissipated on October 18, having caused 81 casualties in Ontario.[9][6].
  • Looking at the Impact section, subsection Carribbean Islands it says there are 9 fatalities in Puerto Rica mentioned first but then the next subsection Haiti starts with Hazel first brought casualties when it struck Haiti on October 12 as a Category 2 storm -- have I missed something in the sequence. Noting it follows the description of the storms progression in the Meteorological history section and its referred to as Hazel before causing damage described in the Carribean section.
  • Betty Kennedy estimates that as much 200 billion litres of water fell on to the Humber River's watershed alone.[32] whos Betty Kennedy what makes her estimates significant?

I linked Humber River and Holland Marsh as well so besides the above issues its ready to be promoted. Gnangarra 14:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I think I've fixed all the awkwardness. Maxim(talk) 15:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support'; even better, also notice you fixed the other concerns as well, though you didnt take the challenge of who is Betty Kennedy :) you have my support, well done. Gnangarra 15:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's the author of Hurricane Hazel, a book I used a fair bit as a reference. What she did is she took the average amount of rain that fell over the watershed (9 inches, I think), got the amount of water per a certain area, then used that, with the area of the watershed, to calculate how much water fell on the watershed; I nixed it because I felt that the up to 90% of the 200 mm of rain did the job equally as well. Two hundred billion litres of water is a bit vague, too. Maxim(talk) 15:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just saying.... here's a major, recent review that hasn't been used as a source: Sasata (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Hurricane hazel: Disaster relief, politics, and society in Canada, 1954-55
Author(s): Robinson, D; Cruikshank, K
Source: JOURNAL OF CANADIAN STUDIES-REVUE D ETUDES CANADIENNES Volume: 40 Issue: 1 Pages: 37-70 Published: WIN 2006
Yes, it hasn't been used a source. I would hardly call it 'major' -- it has an extreme and minority viewpoint, implying that officials in affected areas were searching for an excuse to clear some areas they perceived as slums, so when Hazel was coming, that was their chance. A huge chunk of it chronicles government squabbles, too. Perhaps it would deserve a mention in the subarticle, but if I were to add a bit on this theory, then I'd point out that Marie Curtis, reeve of Long Branch, one of the heavily-affected areas, had a park named after her, and I'm pretty sure there were other honours, for her work after Hazel. In short: adding such an extreme viewpoint would require it to be balanced so the article would be NPOV, and since I'm using summary style for the Canada sections (and possibly failing a little bit, too, btw), I'm not using this source, since there are more important topics to cover. Maxim(talk) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - a few minor points:

  • "Hazel was particularly destructive in Toronto because of a combination of a lack of experience of dealing with tropical storms" - too many "of"s
  • "Hurricane Hazel made landfall near the North Carolina/South Carolina border by the morning of October 15, striking Myrtle Beach, South Carolina before moving north." - not sure if this is proper wording. I would make the statement more firm; i.e., by substituting an "on" for "by", unless the time of landfall is a rough estimate.
  • "The storm drastically slowed on reaching the region" - wouldn't "upon" be more proper?
  • "it was centred" - unless this is proper Hurricane terminology, "centred" is British English, and the article appears to be written in US Eng. See WP:ENGVAR.
  • In File:Hurricane Hazel -- St.Phillips Road.jpg's caption, "needed to fixed or outright rebuilt after Hurricane Hazel." - typo.
  • In current Ref 14, "Barbara, p. 169" → "Stokes, p. 169"
  • For Betty Kennedy's book in references, shouldn't it be "Kennedy, Betty"?

I might have more later. A truly fascinating storm. - I.M.S. (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments, I've fixed most of them. For the centred part -- I'm writing in CanEn, and it's spelled properly. I'd be kinda surprised if some parts are AmEn, US spelling looks weird to me. ;-) Maxim(talk) 03:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected that the article might be Canadian English, but I didn't have enough time to be certain - sorry about the confusion. I've struck the resolved issues above. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hurricane Hazel was the deadliest and costliest hurricane of the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season, and one of the deadliest and costliest storms of the 20th century." — would you agree with replacing one of the "deadliest and costliest"s with another word, perhaps "devastating"? It would remove the redundancy and help with flow, in my opinion. - I.M.S. (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments/leaning oppose
    • In the lede, the first sentence seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. There were many deadlier and costlier storms of the 20th century. Certainly its destruction was widespread, but try and find some wording that can be more quantitative.
      • Fixed.
    • Also in the lede, you say "On its way towards Canada, it passed through several more states", but the center didn't move through some of those you mentioned, like Delaware and New Jersey.
      • Fixed.
    • "bringing wind gusts near 160 km/h (99 mph)" - any reason the mph is so specific? It happens elsewhere in the article, where the first unit is rounded to an even number, but the converted unit is not rounded.
      • Fixed.
    • Parts of the met. history are confusing. First, I suggest you use the Monthly Weather Review more for the MH, since it's another official government source of info to the CHC. Some of the info is inconsistent with the best track, which has it as a tropical storm before hurricane status. It also has a different forward speed. I'm not saying that the CHC is a bad source for the MH, but if there are inconsistencies, then it should be in line with the official database.
      • I think I've fixed all the discrepancies, but I could take an extra look just in case?
    • "As a whole, the storm proved to be very unpredictable, defying forecasts on multiple occasions, which made it even more dangerous" - I think the last part is not necessary, as it's a POV. Tropical cyclones are always dangerous. More importantly, perhaps, why did it turn to the north?
      • Fixed the dangerous part, although I haven't been able to find a reason as to why it turned -- my personal opinion is that there was a change in wind patterns, but I'm afraid I can't give an answer that'll satisfy WP:NOR and WP:V. ;-)
    • "The storm crossed Haiti two days later as a Category 2 hurricane, killing over 1,000 people" - since that is the first sentence of a new paragraph, I am unsure what the date reference is, so you'd be better just saying the date. It might be worth noting that the Saffir-Simpson scale was not in use then. Perhaps just list the wind speed at landfall? Also, the MH is only supposed to be for meteorological details. I don't mind the rainfall stuff later on, but it gets redundant with the casualties in the lede, MH, and impact. Somewhere, regarding Haiti, you should mention the mountain peaks are 8,000 feet tall, per the MWR.
      • Fixed.
    • Have you found any meteorological details why it restrengthened north of the Bahamas? Also, I'm curious, how big was the storm?
      • The initial prediction was for it to lose steam, perhaps the waters were warm enough to sustain, or it was an anomaly (so I'm afraid the answer's the same as for the question about why it turned north. No luck for the size of the storm.
    • Landfall intensity for NC/SC would be good.
      • Fixed.
    • "Hazel accelerated to over 80 km/h (50 mph) upon landfall" - technically, according to the official database from 2010, that is untrue. The fastest it got as an extratropical storm was 48 mph. On the other hand, the MWR from 1954 says it accelerated to 60 mph.
      • Fixed.
    • "The storm drastically slowed upon reaching the region" - again, inconsistent with the official database.
      • Fixed.
    • The article seems really Canada-centred. Any preparations/warnings for Haiti? Any more preparations for North/South Carolina? You mention that evacuation warnings were issued, but you don't say if people actually evacuated. Did the National Guard help out at all? Were there any repercussions to the hurricane threatening the Carolinas?
      • I'm really not finding much on Haiti, especially nothing with regards to preparations. Probably it's partially due to Papa Doc Duvalier's voodoo cult there at the time. They thought it would bypass the US altogether, so nothing more.
    • I'd recommend merging the "Caribbean Islands" and "Haiti section". Considering the flooding in Puerto Rico was the worst in over 50 years, there should be more details there. Surely there's more info in another source. Is there any more on physical damage in Haiti? You have the mudslides and the crops, but not much about buildings. Were people left homeless?
      • Fixed.
    • Also, have you searched for a more updated Haiti death toll? This report from 1993 said 410 deaths in Haiti, with 250,000 affected.
      • The problem with Haiti is that death toll is somewhat vague due to the conditions there. I'm using the estimate (as much as 1000 people) from Gifford 2004.
    • You're missing any impact in the Bahamas, which concerns me with regards to comprehensiveness. I know it's an historic cyclone, but one can't just focus on the main points and expect it to be comprehensive. As I said above, the MWR has lots of stuff, and in this case, some Bahamian info.
      • Fixed, it was a silly oversight.
    • Overall writing is good. One thing sticks out. In the US section of the impact, you have a sentence starting with "However"; however, "however" isn't meant to start a sentence, and it should be preceded by a semicolon.
      • Fixed.
    • The US section seems somewhat lacking. Was there much impact outside of the Carolinas? Even in the Carolinas, you go into a good bit about certain coastal sections, but I'm baffled that 15,000 houses were destroyed, without mention of other forms of impact. Don't forget to inflate the damage totals. Speaking of Carolinas - you mostly only mention North Carolina impact. Was there anything in South Carolina? My biggest problem with the US impact is that it's four paragraphs, while the Canada section is seven *and* it has a sub-article. The Canada section should be trimmed to be in line with the US section. After all, there were 95 fatalities in US and 81 in Canada, and the damage was greater, monetary wise, in the US.
      • Fixed.
    • Don't get me wrong, it is a good article, and a great source of information on the storm. I just feel it is too biased toward Canada's impact, with not enough focus or information on other areas. That is why I have to oppose at this time. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Part of the reason IMO is that there are simply more sources for Hazel in Canada than in the US. In the Carolinas, a hurricane is not unusual, and a major one is cause for concern, but again it happens; in Canada, especially in Toronto, the reaction can be termed "WTF?!?!", so that'd explain more availability of Canada-related sources. I think the article is more balanced now. Thanks a lot for your review. Maxim(talk) 02:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough. I only have two other suggestions, to have an impact table (like in Hurricane Isabel), and to remove the Raymore Drive pic (since it's not directly related to the storm), but you've addressed my concerns enough that I can support. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Rotberg first author, or Clague? I see two different versions in notes versus refs. • Ling.Nut 16:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A well written/researched article which i have been reading over the last few weeks.Jason Rees (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2010 (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/Hurricane_Hazel/archive1&oldid=1091635650"