Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Florida hurricanes (pre-1900)/archive1
After working on it for the last week, I think this is ready for featured list status. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The lead needs expanded and also rephrased. The second sentence, in particular, is badly worded. Can you find a source to explain why the number of deaths used to be so high and why it came down? Is an an up-to-date, satellite image relevant to this page? Seems more suitable for the more recent lists. Can an archive news photo be found? The map showing state divisions is a very fuzzy JPG, which should not be used for diagrams. Replace with a clean PNG or convert to SVG. There are editors who specialise in SVG diagrams if you look around. What is the source for the Deadly storms list? Why are there duplicate entries: "Around 1553" and "1553" and two "1559"? Colin°Talk 13:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lede. I didn't want to add much more because it would either be redundant with the body of the article, or would be inappropriate for this article (other statistics would be better for parent article List of Florida hurricanes). Information back in the 1500s is very poor and limited. The only reason we know of those deaths is due to the National Hurricane Center compiling a list of the deadliest hurricanes. Unfortunately, they only provided the death numbers, not how they died. It could possibly be explained due to the lack of any warning, though that doesn't explain why in the 1800s, when there is more population but not much more warning, the deaths went down. However, after trying a good google search I can't the answer, so I won't add it. I put the up-to-date, satellite image on all of the List of Florida hurricanes pages. Ultimately, the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject is going to develop an infobox for these List of XXX hurricanes pages, and I think that image is an appropriate one (either that or Hurricane Andrew). I've tried looking, but I have no idea where to find editors who specialize in SVG diagrams. Come to think of it, might it be better replacing it with an existing map with cities on it? The deadly storms list is taken directly from the article and doesn't need a source. The duplicate entries are there because they are listed in different places, and it is now unknown if they were different storms or are the same. Thanks for reviewing it. Anything I touch always needs a pair of fresh eyes to make sure I didn't do anything stupid. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I've found some old newspaper articles, though I'm not sure what you're looking for. Here, for example, includes a description of a hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle, but it's a bit long and narrow. Hurricanes back then rarely got the front page headline. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Try asking WikiProject Maps to do you a nice map. The roadmap isn't readable at the size used and is also historically out-of-place. I see your source has some doubts over duplicates and accuracy of death information. I think that any doubts should be noted in the list. Given that your Deadly storms list gives "known deaths", it should perhaps exclude those entries with doubt about the numbers or doubt about whether it is a duplicate. The newspaper photo I was thinking of was a photo in a newspaper, not a photo of a newspaper. But the latter might be appropriate if cropped to mainly the headlines. I don't know the copyright status of the link you gave. Colin°Talk 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've requested for an even better map, a map that includes the tracks of hurricanes from 1851 to 1899 over Florida. The person I asked is an admin and a bit busy, so I'll see if he has the time. Unfortunately, indicating my doubt would be original research, so I don't think I should. For the deadly storms, omitting them due to me believing they were duplicates is also original research. According to the official source, there were two storms that caused 700 deaths around the same year in a similar location, and unfortunately I have to accept it. I've only included those known to have caused a number of deaths. As stated, there are some whose death toll was described as "some" or "several", though for the purpose of that table they shouldn't be included. Photos in newspaper of hurricanes are rare, first of all, for that time period, and when they are available they're generally copyrighted. For a scan of the newspaper, {{newspapercover}} could be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need for OR. Your first ref has "may" in the title (compare second ref). The 1553 events have a footnote "Peterson (1975), Douglas (1958), and Marx 91983) have similar descriptions of what may be just one event.". The 19 Sep 1559 event doesn't have a usable number-of-deaths in the refs you have. If you restrict the Deadly storms to just the accurate ref 2, then the problem goes away and fits nicely with the "known deaths" restriction. Wrt copyright: have a look at template "PD-art". Colin°Talk 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for that first one, it lists the number of deaths for some, but not others. I think due to the uncertainty and lack of a definitive answer, it should be left as it is. For the "PD-art", it says "life of the author plus 100 years", correct? I doubt that time has passed, as images in newspapers probably didn't become popular until at least the 1870s, and we don't know if the authors lived another 35 years or not. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I put in the new image, and removed the others that were unneeded. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, for that first one, it lists the number of deaths for some, but not others. I think due to the uncertainty and lack of a definitive answer, it should be left as it is. For the "PD-art", it says "life of the author plus 100 years", correct? I doubt that time has passed, as images in newspapers probably didn't become popular until at least the 1870s, and we don't know if the authors lived another 35 years or not. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- There's no need for OR. Your first ref has "may" in the title (compare second ref). The 1553 events have a footnote "Peterson (1975), Douglas (1958), and Marx 91983) have similar descriptions of what may be just one event.". The 19 Sep 1559 event doesn't have a usable number-of-deaths in the refs you have. If you restrict the Deadly storms to just the accurate ref 2, then the problem goes away and fits nicely with the "known deaths" restriction. Wrt copyright: have a look at template "PD-art". Colin°Talk 19:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've requested for an even better map, a map that includes the tracks of hurricanes from 1851 to 1899 over Florida. The person I asked is an admin and a bit busy, so I'll see if he has the time. Unfortunately, indicating my doubt would be original research, so I don't think I should. For the deadly storms, omitting them due to me believing they were duplicates is also original research. According to the official source, there were two storms that caused 700 deaths around the same year in a similar location, and unfortunately I have to accept it. I've only included those known to have caused a number of deaths. As stated, there are some whose death toll was described as "some" or "several", though for the purpose of that table they shouldn't be included. Photos in newspaper of hurricanes are rare, first of all, for that time period, and when they are available they're generally copyrighted. For a scan of the newspaper, {{newspapercover}} could be used. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Try asking WikiProject Maps to do you a nice map. The roadmap isn't readable at the size used and is also historically out-of-place. I see your source has some doubts over duplicates and accuracy of death information. I think that any doubts should be noted in the list. Given that your Deadly storms list gives "known deaths", it should perhaps exclude those entries with doubt about the numbers or doubt about whether it is a duplicate. The newspaper photo I was thinking of was a photo in a newspaper, not a photo of a newspaper. But the latter might be appropriate if cropped to mainly the headlines. I don't know the copyright status of the link you gave. Colin°Talk 17:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Also, I've found some old newspaper articles, though I'm not sure what you're looking for. Here, for example, includes a description of a hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle, but it's a bit long and narrow. Hurricanes back then rarely got the front page headline. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the lede. I didn't want to add much more because it would either be redundant with the body of the article, or would be inappropriate for this article (other statistics would be better for parent article List of Florida hurricanes). Information back in the 1500s is very poor and limited. The only reason we know of those deaths is due to the National Hurricane Center compiling a list of the deadliest hurricanes. Unfortunately, they only provided the death numbers, not how they died. It could possibly be explained due to the lack of any warning, though that doesn't explain why in the 1800s, when there is more population but not much more warning, the deaths went down. However, after trying a good google search I can't the answer, so I won't add it. I put the up-to-date, satellite image on all of the List of Florida hurricanes pages. Ultimately, the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject is going to develop an infobox for these List of XXX hurricanes pages, and I think that image is an appropriate one (either that or Hurricane Andrew). I've tried looking, but I have no idea where to find editors who specialize in SVG diagrams. Come to think of it, might it be better replacing it with an existing map with cities on it? The deadly storms list is taken directly from the article and doesn't need a source. The duplicate entries are there because they are listed in different places, and it is now unknown if they were different storms or are the same. Thanks for reviewing it. Anything I touch always needs a pair of fresh eyes to make sure I didn't do anything stupid. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. I would like to see the list data put into reasonably attractive tables. Such a layout makes it much easier for readers to navigate the list's data. It's also not too terribly difficult to do either. See List of Quebec premiers for a model that could be adapted (sans photos) to FL hurricane list. --Zantastik talk 22:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, that is against the format for the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, which uses this format. This was modeled on the other featured tropical cyclone lists; South America tropical cyclones, Delaware hurricanes, and New Jersey hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. There's no requirement to use tables, and probably only makes sense if you can think of several columns. Colin°Talk 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, that is against the format for the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject, which uses this format. This was modeled on the other featured tropical cyclone lists; South America tropical cyclones, Delaware hurricanes, and New Jersey hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)