Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1900 Galveston hurricane/archive1

1900 Galveston hurricane

 * Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the deadliest natural disaster in United States history and one of the most well known historical hurricanes. Formerly, the article was a FA, passing FAC all the way back on August 31, 2004! It was the oldest tropical cyclone-related FA, before WikiProject Tropical cyclones even existed. The article appeared as TFA in April 2005, before losing FA status in January 2008. As you can see from the old TFA version, standards have changed a lot, which is why I strongly favored the change in policy to allow an article to reappear as TFA. Today, the article is more broad in coverage, as there is much more info both in Galveston and everywhere else. It covers the major aspects of this very important storm. I am hoping to have this appear as TFA for a second time on either September 8 or 9 in 2020, for the 120th anniversary of the storm's Texas landfall.--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose at this time - have found several different issues but the most significant is failed verifiability spotchecking


 * "equivalent to $1.066 billion in 2018, adjusted for inflation" - source?
 * Hardly any project articles use inflation anymore. I'm just going to delete that--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "with the remnants last observed near Iceland on September 15" - text and infobox says September 17, which is correct?
 * Text is correct--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Text says September 17, lead and infobox September 15. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I missed the one in the Meteorological history--12george1 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "After entering the Caribbean Sea, U.S. Weather Bureau observers reported a "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)" southeast of Cuba on September 1. The cyclone made landfall near Baní, Dominican Republic, early the next day. Moving west-northwestward, the storm crossed the island of Hispaniola and entered into the Windward Passage near Saint-Marc, Haiti, several hours later. The cyclone then struck near Santiago de Cuba on September 3. The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favorable conditions – including seas "as warm as bathwater", according to one report – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[7]" - I'm having difficulty locating most of these details in footnote 7. In fact, that applies to many other statements cited to FN 7 as well.
 * A lot of things pertaining to the storm's movement and location should've been cited with FN 4. I fixed that. I could only find mirror sites for "unsettled weather", "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)", and "as warm as bathwater". I think the best course of action would be for me to remove the quotations for the first, delete the second, and reword the third to simply say warm waters. I made the mistake of taking someone's word for it--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Still having difficulties with this footnote (now FN8) - for example I do not see "Additionally, [Antigua] reported a severe thunderstorm passing over, followed by the hot, humid calmness that often occurs after the passage of a tropical cyclone" in that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I got it now--12george1 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A grade 6–12 encyclopedia entry on Humidity doesn't seem the best source either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For whatever reason, Jason Rees removed that entire sentence while he made a few edits to the Meteorological history section. I was not having any luck with finding an alternative source anyway, even though I thought it would be rather easy to locate--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The Ackerman source appears to be a general meteorology textbook - are no better sources available?
 * I found a few. Went with a source that's already used in the article--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "With this prosperity came a sense of complacency.[11]" - not really seeing this in given source
 * Added a substitute source--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The URL provided for FN32 is the one from FN30
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "the number most cited in official reports is 8,000" - what source(s) are you using to support that assertion?
 * I did say official, so I guess I need an official source. I will use Blake et al.--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * If you say "most cited in official reports", you need multiple official reports, or a single source that makes that claim. Citing Blake just demonstrates that that's the number used in that particular report. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will also add Texas Hurricane History (Roth)--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "10 roses and 90 others were placed around the monument" - 90 other what?
 * Other flowers--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Check for MOS issues - am seeing repeated links, hyphenation problems, links in See also that already appear in the text, etc


 * This is still an issue. Specific examples include linking atmosphere pressure twice in the first section and mix of "modern-day" and "modern day". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * How are you ordering the bibliography?
 * I ordered them based on when they appeared in the article. Does it need to be done in a different way, such as alphabetical order of last names?--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As we're demonstrating now with adding/moving sources, that system doesn't always stay up to date - Frank and Colby are now cited before Baird, which remains the first on the list. Alphabetical would be easier to maintain. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and assumed you wanted me to do that. So it was already done before you responded--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The page number given in FN65 does not cover all of the material cited to this source
 * fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The last reported survivor of the Galveston hurricane" does not appear to be supported by given source
 * I accidentally deleted the source for that, but I found it again--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The dredging of the Houston Ship Channel in 1909 and 1914 ended Galveston's hopes of regaining its former status as a major commercial center.[124]" - given source supports 1914 but not 1909
 * Upon viewing other sources, it would probably be better to say that the channel was being dredged by 1909 and opened in 1914, which I do have a source for--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As it is quite possible for archives to include unpublished materials, make sure all media with the pre-1924 publication tag were actually published (not just created) before 1924
 * Are you just asking me to look or do you have examples? I did have Isaac Cline's report from 1900 published on a website in 2004. But then I realized that it was archived in the MWR for September 1900. I'm not seeing any problems related to this otherwise--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "80 bodies were found under the ruins after this photograph was made" - given what the image description states about unverified data, this should definitely be attributed
 * It was way easier to find a source than I thought it would be--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Entries in the In popular culture section should include secondary sources identifying the significance of the entry to the topic, as per this RfC
 * I believe I have done that--12george1 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Better, but something like a notice of a book signing doesn't really indicate significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * FN7 is a chapter of a larger work, which should be reflected in the citation
 * It is part of this book. I will add that info to the article--12george1 (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Citation formatting generally needs work for consistency - similar sources should be cited similarly (eg. compare FNs 16 and 35), should be consistent about what information is provided when (eg. sometimes books include locations and other times not), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have done this--12george1 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * More work needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite understanding what needs to be done. There are some irregularly and overlinked newspapers and organizations. I went ahead and fixed that. But the information I am using is based on what info the source chose to include. Some sources, even those hosted by the same website, don't give the same amount of information. Compare FN 75 and and FN 132, for example. They are both from Galveston County Daily News, but the source for the former does not provide an author's name, while the latter does. If you're wondering why some newspapers have locations and others don't, the reason is because when I did the FAC for Hurricane Andrew, somebody asked me to include the locations for newspapers with names that wouldn't make the location obvious. For example, most people wouldn't know that The Chelsea Herald is from Randolph, Vermont, but I wouldn't need say where NYT is from.--12george1 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sometimes sources omit information, that's fine. But compare for example FNs 79 and 139 - these are the same source, yet have different formatting. That shouldn't happen. Other issues are just errors - for example, FN125 has a link that doesn't link to anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I took care of these. But "more work needed" suggests possibly more problems--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are. Further examples include FNs 23 vs 41 (both the same source but formatted differently), and FN 8 (both website and publisher are smushed into the publisher parameter). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could've sworn that FN 23 needed an archive link. Maybe my internet connection was bad that day. Fixed both problems--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "The seawall, since extended to 10 mi (16 km)" - the explicit measurements given in the source only add up to just over 4 miles - is this number based on the streets provided?
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Galveston is home to Port of Galveston, the oldest port along the United States Gulf Coast to the west of New Orleans" - source?
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "A quarter of a century earlier, the nearby town of Indianola on Matagorda Bay was undergoing its own boom and was second to Galveston among Texas port cities" - don't see this in given source
 * Fixed. It's a lot easier to find a citation if I remove the claim that it was second to Galveston--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "Indianola was rebuilt, though a second hurricane in 1886 caused residents to simply give up and move elsewhere" - don't see this in given source. IOW, spotchecking is still finding verifiability problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * "A quarter of a century earlier, the nearby town of Indianola on Matagorda Bay was undergoing its own boom" - don't see this in the cited source
 * It's sort of implied in my opinion, but I found something else--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Supporters argue that the account is accurate based on Cline issuing a hurricane warning without permission from the Bureau's central office" - don't see this in the cited source
 * He did issue a hurricane warning without permission, but I agree that the "supporters argue" part isn't really in there--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Ten refugees from the Beaumont train sought shelter at the Point Bolivar lighthouse with 200 residents of Port Bolivar who were already there" - source says the 10 refugees were part of the 200 total. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Nikki, could you let me know your thoughts following the spotcheck by ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Given that my own spotchecks are still turning up problems, I'm not prepared to change my declaration at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "However, the city experienced a significant economic rebound beginning in the 1920s, when Prohibition and tax law enforcement opened up new opportunities for criminal enterprises related to gambling and bootlegging in the city." - I don't see that the source discusses tax law enforcement as a contributing factor.
 * Oops. The word I was looking for was "lax"--12george1 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "Galveston was flooded by storm surge during Carla" - don't see this in given source
 * If you include the rest of that sentence, technically the source does say that. But I should provide clarity. Only parts not protected by the seawall flooded--12george1 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "The first 3 mi (4.8 km) of the Galveston Seawall, 17 ft (5.2 m) high, were built beginning in 1902 under the direction Robert" - the source doesn't mention who directed construction. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Jason Rees


 * I am surprised to see a gallery section since we generally do not include them in TC articles. I am also surprised to see an "In popular culture" section as it just seems to be a trivial and selective list of items based on nothing, but the author's judgement.Jason Rees (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It may be unusual to have a gallery, but is there a good reason to not have one (e.g. violation or potential violation of some guideline)? As for the popular culture, a few of those are notable enough to have their own articles. If I were to get rid of that section, how would I integrate the song "Wasn't That a Mighty Storm" into the article, because I can't think of an appropriate context? Would that go in the See also section?--12george1 (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See also sounds like an appropriate place for it, though I note that our article on the song, suggests that it is not clear whether the song dates to the hurricane. As for the gallery, WP:Gallery and WP:Not apply here.Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't know the specifics of that policy until now. I'm kinda surprised neither Hurricanehink nor Nikkimaria said anything to me about that. I moved one of the images somewhere else in the article but get rid of the rest. I've also moved the pop culture items into the See also section if they have their own articles--12george1 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)-
 * What makes the museum so notable for its own level 4 heading? I mean i realise that it contains a documentry about the storm but so does my local one if i take my laptop there and play some random film via youtube there.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So go to your local museum and do that? :P Just kidding. I fixed that--12george1 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Haha on further reflection - I wonder what makes the museum to be noted in the article full stop per my earlier comments.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be better if every single sentence was cited, at the end of the sentence as it would make it clearer as to what was being cited for what and lead to less failed verifications.
 * You're talking about the HURDAT vs non-HURDAT stuff, right? There was a bit of a mix up when I deleted a few sentences because the info couldn't be verified with Neil Frank. I forgot to move some of the citations accordingly. I put them in their proper places, but I can still do what you're saying if you want me to--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes please do so since as I said it would be cleaner and easier for the reader imo.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The MH needs a bit of love imo as it doesn't tell the story of the hurricane properly imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to a few sentences being deleted because they weren't in the Frank citation, there was some other stuff moved because it wasn't exactly MH related. There was stuff like watches and warnings, for example, which belong in the Preparations section. So I'm not sure what else I should say, aside from your request that I add more between August 30 and September 2--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We can work on this through the review.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The storm's origins are unclear, because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists. At the time, ship reports were the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes at sea, and because wireless telegraphy would not be invented until 1905, reports remained unavailable until the ships docked at harbor. I would like to see a source that specifically tells me that the origins for the 1900 Galverston are unknown, I would also like you to get rid of everything after the first sentence as it is just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I added a source for that. I want to keep the ships part to give the readers a bit more context (but not too much) about how hurricanes were observed and tracked back then. So I merged both sentences but cut out the wireless telegraphy part--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok it might be better to reorder them for example: The system is believed to have started as a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa, however, the storm's origins are unclear. This is because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists, with ships reports being the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes. I dropped the Cape Verde bit since I don't think that all TC's that develop off the African coast from TW's are Cape Verde hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1900 storm, as with many powerful Atlantic hurricanes, is believed to have begun as a Cape Verde hurricane – a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa. Source as it aint HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The storm passed through the Leeward Islands on August 30, possibly as a tropical depression as indicated by barometric pressure reports from Antigua. - Needs revising as HURDAT says that it was a Tropical Storm on August 30.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I would argue that HURDAT superseeds Franks book here and that it was a tropical storm, not a tropical depression or a wave as Frank implies.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So I'm guessing you want me to remove that?--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Tell the readers what happened between August 30 and September 2, did the storm weaken, strengthen, do a disappearing act or even the hokey cokey?Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's really not much. The storm entered the Caribbean and tracked westward to the south of Puerto Rico. That's about it. But ok--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone reached its maximum sustained wind speed of 145 mph (230 km/h) -> this would be better presented as Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * when a ship recorded an area of unsettled weather. recorded -> Encountered.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Later on August 30, the system moved west-northwestward into the Caribbean Sea and strengthened slightly while passing south of Puerto Rico. The cyclone made landfall -> Later on August 30, the system moved west-northwestward and emerged into the Caribbean Sea where over the next few days it strengthened slightly while passing south of Puerto Rico.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is because of the -> This was since we should use past tense in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You jump from the 27th to the 30th, tell the reader what happened in those days.Jason Rees (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's really hardly anything between those dates. Frank says nothing. Partagás mentions two ship reports, neither of which are really worth mentioning imo. HURDAT has the storm strengthening by only 5 knots on August 29.--12george1 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the sentences concerned so that we can move on with the review. For now, I don't think that it's worth mentioning about the Antigua thunderstorm for now.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that the Partagás source isn't used in the MH, as it contains some crucial details which would give the MH a bit more love and tell the story. In particular, I read that during September 1, Father Gangoiti of the Belen College Observatory started to talk to the press about the system. A quick google shows that this is the Cuban meteorologist that you mention later in the article issuing warnings. As a result, I would like to see some information added to the MH from Partagas please.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In conjunction with my last comment this paragraph needs some love/reworking: The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favourable conditions – including warm sea surface temperatures – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[11] The Weather Bureau ignored reports from Cuban meteorologists because they expected the storm to curve northeast along the Atlantic coast of North America.[12] Forecasters at the Weather Bureau even began stating, inaccurately, that the cyclone was moving northeastward in the Atlantic. However, a region of high pressure had pushed the storm to the west into the Gulf of Mexico.[12]Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Better?--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Its better but it still needs some tweaking in order to make it flow. What im thinking is scrapping the first sentence and opening the second paragraph by talking about Father Gangoiti. Then note that the system continued to move north-northwest and passed to the south of Puerto Rico, before it made landfall near Baní in the Dominican Republic, early on September 2. Also scrap the winds. Keep the 3rd sentence as is for now as it is a decent line that helps move the story along. I think you should combine the fourth and fifth sentences to say something along the lines of "The system made landfall on Cuba near Santiago de Cuba during September 3, before it moved slowly west-northward across the island and emerged into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm on September 5. You should consider ending the paragraph there.


 * Within the next paragraph, I feel that we should expand on this disagreement, between Father Gangoiti and the USWB a little bit. Try something along the lines of "As the system emerged into the Florida Straits, Father Gangoiti observed a big halo around the moon which did not dissipate while the sky turned red deep red and cirrus clouds were moving northwards. This showed him that the tropical storm had intensified and that the prevailing winds were moving the system towards the Texas Gulf Coast. However, the United States Weather Bureau disagreed with this forecast, as they expected the system to recurve and make landfall in Florida before impacting the American East Coast. An area of high pressure over the Florida Keys, ultimately moved the system north-westwards into the Gulf of Mexico where favourable conditions allowed the storm to intensify further.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not so easy to locate that information in Partagas. In fact, I could not find where it talked about a deep red sky or the prevailing winds. However, much of that information can easily be found on page 134 of Larson's book. By the way, Gangoite (not Gangoiti) is the correct spelling. His name was Lorenzo Gangoite--12george1 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer and stated that I found the information within the Al Roker Reference and I cant read Larson's book so im taking your word for it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Random thought is it worth replacing your HURDAT reference with [ IBTRACS], so that the data is more accessible/verifiable?Jason Rees (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I like using template references, but I also agree with what you're saying. So I will do that--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I like using template references as well, but more recently I have been thinking it is easier and better to use IBTRACS. However, I am not a fan of citing that paper and would rather cite the data directly back to the IBTRACS project rather than the AMS. As a result, I have tweaked your reference and will look into templating the reference.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A ship reported the storm to the northwest of Key West, Florida, on September 6. -> Get rid of this sentence please as i dont think it adds anything.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Later that day, the ship Louisiana encountered the hurricane after departing New Orleans, Louisiana. Captain T. P. Halsey estimated wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h) -> This should be merged with the previous paragraph and open with "During September 6, the Louisana encountered the hurricane, whose Captain T. P. Halsey estimated that the system had wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Remove the comparison to the SSHWS as we do not know if they are sustained winds or gusts - I also note that HURDAT or IBTRACS doesn't compare Halsey's winds to the SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The hurricane continued to strengthen significantly while heading west-northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico, becoming a Category 3 hurricane at 06:00 UTC on September 7 and reaching Category 4 intensity about 12 hours later.[9] Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h). -> This would be much better presented in my opinion as During September 7, the system reached its peak intensity with estimated sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h), which made it equivalent to a Category 4 hurricane on the modern day SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This would also be a good point to revisit the USWB vs Cuba row as during September 7, the USWB realised that the system was still in the Gulf and heading for Texas. After there was no severe weather reported over the United States East Coast. (This comes from Roker again).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * By the afternoon of September 7, large swells from the southeast were observed on the Gulf of Mexico, and clouds at all altitudes began moving in from the northeast. Both observations are consistent with a hurricane approaching from the east. -> Get rid off as its just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * On September 8, the hurricane weakened slightly and recurved to the northwest while approaching the coast of Texas. The Weather Bureau office in Galveston began observing sustained hurricane-force winds by 22:00 UTC September 8 -> Combine.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The cyclone made landfall around 02:00 UTC on September 9 near modern day Jamaica Beach as a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h).[9] -> I would personally remove the sustained winds here, it might also be worth noting the local time in brackets after the 02:00 UTC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will add the local time, but I would rather not remove the sustained winds. Isn't the point of an MH section to include details such as that? That would be like if you told me to remove the landfall wind speed in the FAC for Hurricane Andrew--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have personally never included landfall windspeeds in my articles and it cant be a project standard since we rarely have only one sustained windspeed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough--12george1 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I would urge you to be careful about your landfall location, as I feel it would be better to say that it made landfall to the southeast of Houston, Texas, rather than near modern day Jamaica Beach. This is because Jamaica Beach is on a barrier island and im fairly certain that a hurricane making landfall on a small island isnt counted in the same way. It is also worth noting that Houston is more well known then Jamaica Beach. However, I recognise your view may not be the same as mine.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The landfall point was actually almost directly south of Houston, but I will do it--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You have a point there, it was more south of Houston than southeast.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Do we really need to know what pressure the system had at its peak/landfall? If not then get rid of the reference as well or use IBTRACS if you want to keep it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be kept based on the same line of reasoning with the MH landfall wind speed, so I used IBTRACS--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Pressure at peak is one of those things that I would mention if its notable enough but ok.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it later in the article, but I guess I could remove it here--12george1 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * While crossing Galveston Island and West Bay, the eye passed just west of the city of Galveston -> HURDAT indicates that the system passed about 35 km to the south-west of Galveston, so i wonder if we know how big the eye was. Otherwise, I would urge you to change it to southwest since HURDAT overrules Neil Frank.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The hurricane quickly weakened after moving inland, falling to a Category 2 intensity around 06:00 UTC on September 9 and then to a Category 1 hurricane about 12 hours later. Later that day, it curved northward and weakened to a tropical storm at 18:00 UTC. About 24 hours later, the cyclone weakened to a tropical depression over Kansas on September 10. The storm lost tropical characteristics and transitioned into an extratropical cyclone over Iowa by 12:00 UTC on September 11. Moving rapidly east-northeastward, the extratropical system re-intensified, becoming the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane over Ontario on September 12. The extratropical remnants reached the Gulf of Saint Lawrence early the following day. After crossing Newfoundland and entering the far northern Atlantic hours later, the remnants of the hurricane weakened and were last noted near Iceland on September 15. -> This need trimming down as we do not mention every single storm weakening. I would suggest just the tropical storm followed by the extratropical transition, before the re-intensification and subsquent weakening. It should also be one paragraph.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Better?--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what to make of the background, prepartion and impacts sections. Surely if only Texas has some decent preps then it should jsut be merged with Imapct and called effects.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There were warnings in other places, which I added to the article--12george1 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the background section if it really is needed then I would suggest that you tell the reader straight off the bat, that the City of Galveston was formally founded during 1839 and that it had previously survived numerous storms.
 * I would then suggest that you tell the reader that it was a booming town (Whatever that means) and explain that the 1900 census showed that the population of Galveston was 37,788 which was an increase from 29,084 people recorded in the 1890 Census.
 * I came up with a slight variation of your ideas because I thought it would be better to not fragment the stuff about how they thought a strong hurricane would not strike the island. I hope you like it. I also added a link for boomtown. Maybe that term is used quite a bit more in here in the US than over there?--12george1 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Support as GA reviewer. I'm surprised at the depth of comments so far. I support this nomination for FAC on my usual merit. The article is the best resource in the world for this event. 12George1 has spent countless hours on the article, and I think his work speaks for itself. I can't speak for other reviewers, but it appears that he's more than capable and willing to address any comments from other users regarding this nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since we have outstanding opposition from on the basis of failed verification checks, would you be willing to carry out some additional spot-checks of cited sources for verification? -- Laser brain   (talk)  12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do! I'll get to it over the next few days. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I used a random number generator from 1-150 (given the number of references). I did this 15 times to account (randomly) for 10% of all citations.
 * Random spotcheck
 * 32 - I think the ref should be put at the end of the sentence, as it's citing a phrase, not a fact. That would show it is more of a comparison from the account of the brothers versus Larson. Given that ref 33 is in 1999, I object to "recent years" being used, as 20 years ago isn't exactly recent. Sure, you could party like it's 1999, but calling it recent? I suggest finding alternate wording.
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 79 - The death toll and population decline check out. It's good.
 * 129 - The citation confirms the city's nickname.
 * 95 - The wind speed is confirmed in the source.
 * 8 - The source confirms that ships were the primary means of getting meteorological data on storms.
 * 26 - The source is detailed, and is summarized well in the article.
 * 7 - I suggest putting ref 7 after ref 4 on its first usage. Make sure the same thing happens throughout the article. The source cites the statement about the origins, and the article disputes the source when it says "the origins are unclear". I'd remove that part. It's pretty clear, from basic weather knowledge, that majority of disturbances from that part of the world originate from tropical waves. I imagine that wording might be from a previous version of the article.
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 140 - The source says "up to $2 billion". I don't know how I feel about this one.
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 47 - The citation backs up the coastal damage and the description.
 * 33 - "As the system emerged into the Straits of Florida, Gangoite observed a large, persistent halo around the moon, while the sky turned deep red and cirrus clouds moved northwards." - I read that without any context, and was quite confused. I suggest you merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, given how much they are about the Cuban observations.
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * 10 - All of the content is used in this detailed resource.
 * 87 - I suggest saying "at least $12,000" in damage as opposed to "between $12,000 and $15,000", which... isn't that much nowadays, but of course was a lot for back then. Otherwise it's good.
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Overall, the citations were reliable, independent, and generally covered the content as described in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 75 - Info checks out.
 * 147 - I suggest putting the ref at the end of the sentence. Otherwise it's good.
 * 39 - Info checks out.
 * I've worked on all of your comments, wherever action was required--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from Hurricane Noah
The article seems to be rather biased towards Galveston in the aftermath. I get most of the impact occurred there, but there isn't any mention of recovery efforts anywhere other than Galveston. Noah Talk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I will look, but I likely won't find much. I think my best bet would be other places in Galveston County and the surrounding counties--12george1 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Were you able to find anything? Noah Talk 19:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * "The second-deadliest storm to strike the United States, the San Ciriaco hurricane of 1899, caused around 3,400 deaths" not needed as there is a table directly to the right of it with the information. Noah Talk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Done--12george1 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Watch your significant figures. Some values need more places and others less. Noah Talk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I did this--12george1 (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks better. Noah Talk 23:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I also have a couple suggestions for cuts to the aftermath... It appears to be a bit bloated in that last section. Noah Talk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Beginning in the 1920s, Prohibition and tax law enforcement opened up new opportunities for criminal enterprises related to gambling and bootlegging in the city. Galveston rapidly became a prime resort destination enabled by the open vice businesses on the island. This new entertainment-based economy brought decades-long prosperity to the island." That does not appear to have any connection to the hurricane. As stated, this was a result of prohibiton and tax law enforcement, not the storm. Noah Talk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I need to find a better way to make the connection. You're right that this has more to do with Prohibition and tax law enforcement, but the Open Era was the city's big economic rebound because the city also suffered greatly economically as a result of the storm, especially in regards to the city losing its major port and commercial center status to Houston. This was a more long-term aftermath thing, as opposed to the earlier aftermath stages such as rebuilding and donations being sent in--12george1 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Noah Talk 23:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Today, Galveston is home to Port of Galveston, the oldest port along the United States Gulf Coast to the west of New Orleans.[147] The city has three institutes of higher learning – Galveston College, Texas A&M University at Galveston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.[148] American National Insurance Company, a major insurance corporation, is based in Galveston" again, no direct connection to the storm mentioned. Noah Talk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed this--12george1 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to say this, but I can't support this article currently. It was not prepared for FAC in the least and honestly should have been withdrawn and put through a peer review with a couple people. With everything that Nikki keeps finding while only doing random spot checks is alarming for me. At this point, I would say spot checks are not the answer. We need to go through every source and make sure everything is correct. Additionally, I take issue with the balance of material in the article's aftermath. Surely there must be something out there for other locations in Texas and/or the other affected areas. Not saying there is a lot, but there should be at least something that can be added. Again, I hate doing this, but it has been a month and I don't feel comfortable supporting this. I am hereby opposing this nomination per the aftermath balance and my lack of confidence in the accuracy of the article given the endlessly failed spot checks from Nikki. Noah Talk 23:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, when I saw Nikki was still finding issues I felt we'd have to call it a day here and re-work outside FAC, then come back and have another try after the usual two-week-minimum breather -- thanks everyone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)