Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1928 Okeechobee Hurricane

1928 Okeechobee Hurricane
Self-nomination. My fellow tropical cyclone editors have aggreed this is one of the best and (considering time period and available information) most complete tropical cyclone articles (discussion can be found on the wikiproject talk page). I've been working on this article for a while, and I think I've finally got it structured and written to my satisfaction. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like it. Here are a few problems I see (sorry I didn't tell you them earlier :)


 * Structuring of the Florida section. The aftermath picture on the left is a little big, so perhaps it could be split up into three? Another option would be to move the most intense at landfall table up to the storm history section; maybe put it just below the infobox.
 * Much better now with larger picture. Hurricanehink


 * Possibly more Puerto Rico damage.
 * Figures. Oh well. You should avoid using the same word in two consecutive sentences, like damage and damage in the Caribbean impact. Also, the Bahamas is not Caribbean, yet should fall in the same category as Puerto Rico and islands. Not sure the best way to fix that. Maybe Atlantic impact, or something else, but Caribbean is a little misleading (it only spent a little bit of time there). Hurricanehink

*Personally, I don't think too much should be in parenthesis. (perhaps but not impossible), (older sources usually list 3,411 as the total count of fatalities, including the Caribbean), or (but note all such measurements are suspect) are some of those I found that could easily be included into actual sentences.
 * Is there any information in the impact up the coast? It made landfall in Florida, paralleled the Georgia and Carolina coastline, then turned northwest inland.
 * Great job with this. Hurricanehink


 * Some parts are a little point of view, IMO, including the perhaps but not impossible, as well as the eerie similarity. Eerie? It was named San Felipe Segundo due to the date. You could explain San Felipe like you did, then mention the coincidence.
 * Overall, well done. I vote no right now, but with a little love it could be the next FA. Hurricanehink 03:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All good points. Too bad you didn't mention them before it was nominated!
 * Florida: These pictures are pretty representative from what I can tell, but being a triple-picture makes it harder to distinguish. There is a gallery at commons:Category:1928 Okeechobee Hurricane; maybe a better picture is available.
 * AFAICT there is no information available on damage in Puerto Rico (which was catastrophic), or in Guadeloupe (which was possibly even more catastrophic), or in the Bahamas (which we can assume was catastrophic), or in the rest of the United States (which was probably fairly mild). There's little enough info about coastal damage, though the gallery includes a lot of pictures.  Perhaps you could find something however.
 * I reworded some parts to remove the POV and unnecessary parenthesis.
 * &mdash; jdorje (talk) 04:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * When I get home from school, I'll try taking a look to see if there's something on non-Florida US damage. Again, sorry I didn't mention it earlier, but this is the first time I tried looking at it without a hurricane writer's point of view. One more thing, don't use too many short sentences. For the most part that is not a problem, but, for example, you say Then it moved over the Bahamas. You could say, The hurricane continued to the northwest, and moved over the Bahamas with estimated winds of Category 4 status.  Something like that is better than saying, then it moved over the Bahamas. Then should not be used too much. Replace it with a verb, like continued or something else. It just seems a little too vernacular to start a sentence, IMO. Still, good job. Hurricanehink 16:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Great use of images, inline citations, fantastic statistics, and the lead paragraphs are very effectful for grabbing the readers attention. Great work. -- light  darkness (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Well structured article. The information is detailed, but not excessively so. The images are well-positioned. The article flows well, it's not just a heap of information. Word choice is excellent. The inline sources are well placed. FA quality article IMO. -- §  Hurricane  E  RIC  §Damages archive 22:47, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support with recommendation: Because several sections attempt to construct paragraphs along the lines of "the storm here, the storm there, the storm over there," they end up with quite lopsided development.  Where the storm hit unpopulated areas, there isn't much to say, and where it hit heavy concentrations, there is a great deal.  It's probably better to organize non-chronologically, by order of severity, and use internal cues to let the reader know the timeframe (which is well established at the lead anyway).  Secondly, the "records" section sticks out a bit.  The caveats contained in it are necessary and useful to readers, but perhaps they should be folded into the main narrative earlier (at the discussion of storm strength) rather than isolated.  In isolation, they disrupt the flow of the article's narrative.  These are recommendations, however, and not objections, so I support and merely see a way to make it better.  Geogre 15:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I merged the records section in with the body of the storm history. It does flow a little better now.  The "caveats" could be shortened or removed since such caveats really apply to any storm prior to about 1995 (although for older storms they are stronger). &mdash; jdorje (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - short and concise but comprehensive. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support - very interesting, well written. Some minor suggestions - briefly explain Cape Verde-type where it's linked to.  Also, the sentence Damage was not reported but was presumably catastrophic is purely speculative and I don't think the article would suffer if it was removed.  And Most survivors and bodies were washed out into the Everglades where many were never found implies that the survivors were then swept to their deaths - is this the intent? Worldtraveller 00:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting points. I changed the wording of all three places slightly.  As for being "washed out into the Everglades", my understanding is that pretty much everything was washed out into the everglades.  The bodies were never found, while the survivors (i.e., the ones who weren't swept to their deaths) had to walk out of the marshes. (This comes mostly from one of the sources, IIRC from a first-hand account included in one of the newspaper articles.) &mdash; jdorje (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak no - It is practically done, but I'm trying to find some references of some U.S. impact (no Florida). So far I've found North Carolina (it caused 5 inches of rain, high tides, and strong winds). The link is here. The reason I did not add it is because there's not enough information for another section with just that. Another thing; it says not until Hurricane Dog were stronger winds measured. What about the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, which had winds of up to 185 mph? The first paragraph of the storm history was a little boring (too many short sentences), so I changed it. Hopefully that's OK, as I felt the previous wording was a little sub-par. The article is getting there, though. Hurricanehink 01:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The lack of data from outside Florida is a problem. It makes the article incomplete in a way.  However this is not unusual for older storms: the 1900 Galveston Hurricane doesn't mention damage in Cuba, nor does 1935 Labor Day Hurricane mention damage in the Bahamas.  As for the wind speed, the LD hurricane had 160 mph winds (from List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes, and the best-track that's referenced in the article); higher winds may have existed but if they weren't recorded the NHC won't assume them; they might change this in future updates of the best-track however. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a link for Hurdat, showing the 185 mph winds. Hurricanehink 02:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't read powerpoint files. What does it say? ... Regardless, that is not the hurdat.  The master hurdat files are here, and clearly show 160 mph winds.  That said, hurdat is subject to being revised and I have reason to believe 1935 is in the not-fully-analyzed period.  So I have no problem with softening or removing the statement. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, after thinking about this a bit more I can't see what's wrong with the current statement. The LD storm's winds were not measured.  In fact it would be easy to argue that the statement is not strong enough, since Dog's winds were measured at flight level, not surface level.  It is entirely possible that no storm has had stronger surface winds measured (except by dropsonde, if that counts).  Of course this brings us around to the unreliability of any wind measurement, so it's unwise to make any absolute statement since all measurements are suspect. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The file is an early revision to what will be released later this year. Given that it's a government site, I'd say it is pretty official. However, because it is not NHC accepted yet, the way you did it is fine. What about the North Carolina impact section? There is some info there that should be mentioned, but how could it work? Hurricanehink 14:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support: Well written - informative and interesting. Seems to meet all criteria.  Giano | talk 10:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

juan andrés 04:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Images, tables, infoboxes, references, stability and a well written article are the criteria (for me) for a featured article, since it covers all the criteria I will give it a support.


 * Support A very good well developed article. Tarret 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)