Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article stats

[edit]

FAC Nominator User:Brian0918

Authorship stats

  1. North8000 31.3%
  2. Brian0918 27.8%
  3. SandyGeorgia 6.4%

Top editor stats

  1. North8000 · 390 (39%)
  2. Brian0918 · 288 (28.8%)
  3. SandyGeorgia · 119 (11.9%)

Stats as of 6 December 2021, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FASA nominations

[edit]

Please set up separate sections for each nomination.

FASA nomination North8000

[edit]
  • North8000 did the majority of the work bringing this article back to FA standards. They were also the editor who was responding to queries on the FAR page. They deserve to be recognized. Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion North8000

[edit]
  1. Support Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support North8000 did all the heavy lifting to restore this article to featured status, and is now responsible for almost a third of the article authorship, surpassing the original nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping and nomination. I'd be honored. I enjoyed working on the article and working with the reviewers and plan to continue working on the article.North8000 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Hog Farm Talk 21:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]

The storm was the deadliest, most destructive natural disaster in recorded history to hit the lakes. The Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people, destroyed 19 ships, and stranded 19 others. About $1 million of cargo—including coal, iron ore, and grain—weighing about 68,300 tons was lost. While shipping was the hardest hit in the storm, it impacted other cities including Duluth, Chicago, and Cleveland, the latter of which received feet of snow and was paralyzed for days.

Suggestion: (dead people are worse than shipping hits, link cities … why “other” cities, no previous cities are mentioned ??? “… which received ???? … I don’t know how to correctly link cities, please check MOS ) …

The storm was the deadliest and most destructive natural disaster to hit the lakes in recorded history. More than 250 people were killed. Shipping was hard hit; 19 ships were destroyed, and 19 others were stranded. About $1 million of cargo—including coal, iron ore, and grain—weighing about 68,300 tons was lost. The storm impacted many cities including ??add the word port?? Duluth, Chicago, and Cleveland, the latter of which received ??? feet of snow and was paralyzed for days.

Will continue later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subbed in suggested text. Still working on total snowfall in Cleveland. It is not in the body and so would need to be added there as well. North8000 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done except for still-awkward "feet of snow" with no number. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, cool. If I can find total Cleveland snowfall in a sources I'll sub that in later. North8000 (talk) 20:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some of the citations bare URLs ?? I fixed citation # 5; shall I do the others (like 14, 15, and 52]? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Because I'm weak in that area. So far I've never gotten confident/fluent on / worked at citation templates or otherwise keeping URL invisible. Maybe I can learn and fix here. North8000 (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t mind fixing them; just wanted to check before diving in. I am out for an engagement all evening, but will dig in again tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Bare URLs and inconsistent citation formatting now cleaned up. Please note that WP:WIAFA requires a consistent citation format, and I have hopefully now caught all of the inconsistencies. But, in doing this work, I found some sourcing issues which are detailed below as new items. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an incorrectly formatted citation, is missing a page number, and why isn't it listed like others under References, with a short note in citations-- that is, why the difference in formatting? The Deadly Great Lakes Hurricane of 1913 Noverber's Fury by Michael Schumacher University of Minnesota Press 2013 ISBN 978-o-8166-8719-0 ISBN 978-o-8166-8720-6 oclc 862614685 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:It was previously just in as "further reading". In response to a question in this FAR about that I bought and just received the book. I haven't finished reading it but I found a chapter where it would provide 2nd reference in an area that could use a 2nd. So I converted it from "further reading" to a single use reference and that is as far as I got. I thought it was OK but looks like not up to FA standards. :-) North8000 (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you can give me the page nos, chapter, or whatever that supports the text, I will complete the citation when I resume work tomorrow … gotta go get ready for my evening out now! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Have fun on your evening out. :-) Correction, there was a phrase in a sentence which I was looking for a cite for anyway. I'll find a page #/#'s North8000 (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Pages 10-11 have a succinct statement of that. North8000 (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, citation formatting corrected. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno. It was in there from olden times. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry then— gone now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Fixed the sequence. North8000 (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artic spread is a redlink. That is a fine, but with or without the article, the sentence gives the reader no clue as to what an artic spread is. Some clarifying text is needed regardless if the redlinked article is written. The cited source never mentions the term, so I don’t know how to fix this. The water in the five Great Lakes holds heat that allows them to remain relatively warm late into the year and postpones the Arctic spread in the region.[3]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Replaced "arctic spread" which is not in the source and does not appear to be a term with what was in the source.North8000 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both resolved In an FAR note I was requested to provide more on on the "trimming" term. The overall sentence was and is supported by the Brown reference. I added three things on trimming....an internal link, a short explanation, and a reference to an expensive 349 page hard core technical book which I got from the article that I linked to. In hindsight and in FA context I didn't need to and shouldn't have added the reference because it may be self-published and also I don't have and can't get a page #. So I took it out. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This had an incomplete citation (which I fixed-- all website require an accessdate), still has an incomplete citation, and does not verify the text: Rogue waves and clapotis are both known to occur on the Great Lakes and can result in the loss of ships.[a] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 3.2 The density of fresh water and seawater Open Learning
  2. ^ "Rogue Waves". National Geographic. Retrieved November 2, 2021.
@SandyGeorgia: That that text and note is in the article from long ago. While there is nothing actually false in them, I was never comfortable with the inclusion. I consider it to be giving distorted or confusing impressions. Much of it I have no desire to defend nor ability to truly source. I'll rework that whole thing.North8000 (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done yet, but for now, I at least removed the faulty dash; the rest of the article uses unspaced WP:EMDASHes, and I think this was the only wayward WP:ENDASH. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
Resolved (I believe) I completely reworked that set of sentences+ notes in the body and the lead. Material is mostly new and includes supporting references / cites. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a Wiki standpoint it is not needed; the material is sufficiently is sourced without it. . IMHO it is a credible, expert, accessible source very focused on the Buffalo with more material on the Buffalo than other sources. Policy dictates what sources fulfill the verifiability requirement rather than what sources are allowed to be present, so IMO an extra source (that looks real world reliable even if it does not meet wp:rs criteria) is OK. If someone else wants to remove it fine with me but I can't bring myself to to do what I think would be the opposite of an improvement to the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Poking around, I found this page at archive.org (see bottom of page). The website content was taken from a book with the authors’ permission. Maritime Buffalo It looks like Vogel is a serious author.[1]. If we are going to use this source, the citation should reflect the origin of the content, which will make for a convoluted citation. I can write that citation, but I am wondering if it is worth the effort, just to source one number that is already sourced to Brown. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate infoboxes, so know little about them, but most of the infobox entries begin with an uppercase, while a few begin with lowercase. Consistency? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In edit mode (???) … The infobox says highest gust is 80; the lead says highest gust is 90. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved It correctly displayed as 90 mph. It appears that the false-intelligence built into this info box inputs in knots, then displays in rounded MPH and Km/H. Not that it changed anything, but I put in the exact knots figure to get it to convert to 90 MPH without relying on rounding. North8000 (talk)
    I don’t know how to operate on this infobox; it contains an automatic convert on pressure, but the pressure numbers in the article body do not have converts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The infobox has maximum snowfall of 24”; I can’t find where that is mentioned in the body. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved I took it out. Nothing sourceable could fulfill the "maximum" wording hard coded into the template. Nothing that I could source could even fulfill a possibly-imply-able lower bar of "maximum recorded" which is the rationale I used to leave in the max wind gust figure. North8000 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      What a totally stupid infobox (another good reason to hate those things). When I added the citation from the body of the article to the 90 mph in the infobox, it altered the number. I am going to pretend I didn't see that and move on. Not worth worrying about.  Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These three (very old) books (Hemming, Ratigan, Shipley) are each cited only once, are missing page nos, and all three are used to cite an uncontroversial statement. Rather than searching for pages nos, surely we can cite this text to any of the other sources we have ? Intense winds affect the lakes and shorelines, causing erosion and flooding.[10][11][12]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved (I think) Authors tend to not make "sky is blue" statements and so these an be harder to source. Hence, before seeing this, that's why I added a cite (by coincidence) to Ratigan (elsewhere in the article) (I have the book) before I read this. So I knocked out that content-free sentence and all three of it's pageless cites which you noted. I converted the 2 now-unused references to "further reading" (keeping because they are entire books dedicated to the topic of the article). North8000 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • I am concerned about why this recent scholarship is only used once in the article. Also, North8000, could you verify that the ISBN I have listed, as well as the year, are the same version of the book you are using? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking further at this book, I am concerned that the article may not be comprehensive (WP:WIAFA 1b) without exploring more content from this source. It sounds like there is an SS Edmund Fitgzerald type story here!

    The ultimate story of man versus nature, November’s Fury recounts the dramatic events that unfolded over those four days in 1913, as captains eager—or at times forced—to finish the season tried to outrun the massive storm that sank, stranded, or demolished dozens of boats and claimed the lives of more than 250 sailors. This is an account of incredible seamanship under impossible conditions, of inexplicable blunders, heroic rescue efforts, and the sad aftermath of recovering bodies washed ashore and paying tribute to those lost at sea. It is a tragedy made all the more real by the voices of men—now long deceased—who sailed through and survived the storm, and by a remarkable array of photographs documenting the phenomenal damage this not-so-perfect storm wreaked.

    Shall I purchase the $9 Kindle version, or does it have nothing new? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second that.....actually there are about 20 SS Edmund Fitgzerald stories here, plus a far wider and more complex storm which is what makes the article so fun and difficult to do well. I plan to keep working on it after the FAR. And would welcome anyone else who would also like to. North8000 (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the Google books preview, it looks like there’s a lot of worthwhile information. Schumacher has a lot to say about ship design contributing to the disaster, in addition to the weather forecasting difficulties. I see the Wexford also has a book; haven’t looked for other shios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This book has been the subject of several questions. I consolidated into one more thorough answer below. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I think that the specific issue is resolved, I added 2 more cites to that book.North8000 (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's now up to a large amounts of cites to the Schumacher book. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added inline comments to several areas where we have content duplicated in two sections, and where some expansion is warranted (although I suspect much more expansion is warranted). And did a bit of basic copyediting, but more is needed; there are some inelegant passages, but will work on them later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One question was why only those ships are in the table vs. all 38. I "inherited" it like this. The ships selected are the ones that outright sank (vs run around on shore) and where all hands were lost. (the list is the same for those two criteria) Presumably the editor didn't think a 38 ship table appropriate for this article, especially since there is a separate article just on the ships lost which lists all of them. I have no strong opinion, but tend to agree. Long term I plan to continue to work on this article at a slower pace and include more on the sequence of events on what happened to some of the ships. Other than that, all of the specifically noted items have been Resolved North8000 (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update

North8000, all of the unstruck items above remain for you to address; I've done all I can for now. I will resume a complete readthrough after these are addressed. (PS, just a note:  Done templates should not be used on FAR pages, as they cause a problem in FAR and FAC template limits, but note that it is OK to use them on the talk page, as the talk page doesn't feed the template limits on the main page. Just wanted to make sure you don't follow my lead here and use them on the main FAR or FAC pages :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourced to Brown (2002), p. 233: Huron. Lake masters said waves reached at least 35 ft (11 m) in height.[42]. This is apparently what lake masters reported, although not officially measured? Some sort of footnote is needed, and the lead should not state it as fact. We have to jive with biggest ever recorded 29 and highest ever recorded 28.8, but records only date to 1979, so we somehow need to explain that this is a guesstimate. What exactly does the source say? And can we check it vis-a-vis what Schumacher (2014) says? Do we have the same problem with speed on wind gusts? The WMNEM source mentions 36-foot waves on Huron and 38 on Superior, estimated by ship captains, so we might need to tighten the lead to explain these are estimates based on observation, not actually measured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, a sidebar discussion: I've done a lot of reading in the area, including during my only one other FA experience which was taking SS Edmund Fitzgerald through FA. Nobody measures the peak waves. There are lots of observational estimates (only by the survivors, the dead people probably saw bigger ones), and also a lots of scientific writing which usually goes something like: "under those conditions, 1% of waves would be over 40 feet". There are sourced inclusions of up to 50' waves in this article. 35' for a fraction of / the biggest waves is pretty conservative. The source you provided said that the (actually measured and recorded0 average of the biggest 1/3 of the waves was 28.8 feet, which means the biggest were larger, and this was on a day in 2017, not during one of the epic storms. All that said, I think it would be fine to change to the attributed wording that you suggest and I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we just have to re-word our content (particularly the lead, but also the body), because right now, the lead gives more certainty to these numbers than the source can; if they are ship captain guesses, we should state that (or whatever the sources say). I got into this because I was trying to understand if this storm was so deadly only because of the difficulties in weather forecasting at the time, or if it was an extreme historical storm independently from the weather forecasting shortcomings. Somewhere in the article we may need to state that it is both, depending on what the sources say, and I suspect Schumacker would have more to say on the subject. At any rate, we should clarify something about these not being measurable recorded numbers, as the two sources above indicate. Anyone looking for the record for wave height on the Great Lakes will wonder why we report a number higher than reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short, science pretty strongly supports a fraction of the main wave trains exceeding 35 feet. It's also considered highly plausible and scientifically accepted (and mentioned in many estimates) that combined waves (including those reflected from shores, and often called "rogue") can nearly double the height of those. Anything much less than the estimated 50' of the one that smashed the bridge of the Waldo would be implausible. Of course the useful summary that I just wrote would be wp:synthesis if in article space. :-) I'll figure something out. North8000 (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I consider "cause" to be a subjective word, not an objective one, any answer I give is a vague subjective one. With that caveat, my take on the main "causes" (starting with the most important then going down from there)
  1. Size, power, duration, and wind directions of the storm. While data is more limited the further back you go, taking these factors together, nothing worse has occurred on the Great Lakes in recorded history, before that or since then.
  2. Human complacency regarding really bad potential storms in a broad range of areas including captain decisions, ship design, commercial practices and others
  3. Inability to predict and communicate the particulars of the storm
North8000 (talk)
Resolved (I think) I added a well sourced set of sentences that covers wave heights, and where the numbers come from and they are supported by science. The "over 35'" in the lead is IMO a sky-is-blue very safe / conservative summary from the body of the article and observations/likely/plausible ones from interactions are more in the area of 50'. Somewhere there was an estimate of 60' although I did not include it. North8000 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Schumacher book (plus the other 2 books). The has some up several times and has 2-3 open questions on it and so I thought I'd cover it more thoroughly here. (That I know of) there are three full books dedicated solely to this storm. I bought hard copies of all three during the FAR. First Brown, then Barcus, and very recently Schumacher. So far I've read the Brown book twice, the Barcus book once, and only skimmed and spot-read the recently received Schumacher book. I think that they are all good sources with lots of material for the article. Until recently the Schumacher book was just in as "further reading". In response to a question in this FAR about that I bought and recently received the book. I haven't finished reading it but I found a chapter where it would provide 2nd reference in an area that could use a 2nd and just put in in as a reference once to resolve that question. And that is as far as I've gotten regarding the Schumacher book. Of the three Brown is probably the most complete, "academic-ish", largest and organized of the three (vs a "stories from the storm" type book.) Schumacher looks like a close second on that scale, with Barcus being more on the "stories from the storm" flavor.North8000 (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Update. I've read about 1/4 of the Schumacher book. So far no new facts that weren't in the Brown book. I do think that Schumacher does to more explaining, summarizing and providing perspectives all of which make it a good additional source for this article.North8000 (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North, I am holding off for now until you are completely done, so as not to interrupt your work; please let me know when I should revisit. Thanks for all the improvements! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that everything specific has been handled or addressed except I am reworking the map per Elcobbola's guidance. This will take some time because of the complexity of it plus me not being very good/fluent at the software needed to do it.North8000 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will check in later today for striking, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got some items struck, but ran out of steam (long day); more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all "pending" above has been addressed, now moving on to prose fine-tuning ... back to the main FAR page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Per request I checked all the images except the ones in the boat table, which I didn't have time for. The only two with issues are File:Cleveland streetcar after blizzard of 1913.jpg and File:Charles S Price upside down, 1913.png since the original publication date is not given it's not possible to determine the copyright status with the information available. (t · c) buidhe 03:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe; I avoid images like the plague— what is your recommendation? Do those need to be removed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 1913 publication date is 99% likely. North8000 (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
re North: Not necessarily, photographs may be taken at a certain date but not published until later. re Sandy: I can check the ship images later today, although personally I don't see what they are adding to the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that possibility was what I included in the the other 1%. :-) I.E. never used/published when it was news but then published later when it wasn't. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913/archive2&oldid=1059374547"