Wikipedia:Featured article review/Galveston Hurricane of 1900/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:16, 25 January 2008.

Review commentary

 * ''Notified WP:TROP, WP:TEXAS, WP:HOUSTON and User:Cyrius.

Primary failure is on 1(b). As noted on the talk page, the article almost exclusively is about the events in Galveston - not the wider events surrounding the storm. There is little synoptic history of the actual storm, and no information on any damage outside of the one city.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nilfanion, please follow the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page to notify involved editors and relevant WikiProjects with Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and post a note about notifications back here, following the example on other FARs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, though this strike me as an obvious bot function...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There exists references to impact from the storm at other locations (Cuba) etc., I will have to dig them up out of the NY Times archives. BUT, you have to remember this was 1900 and much of the American South, outside of a few large cities, was sparsely populated -- and Galveston was the leading city in the State of Texas. The storm's notability comes from the fact that in 1900 Galveston was as well known nationally as New Orleans or Houston is today. As with today's Hurricane Katrina, the focus of much of the "damage" from the storm is noted on the major city/population center it impacted; lack of media and communication infrastructure imposes limits on how much information was available in 1900. Nsaum75 (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2007
 * I agree its hard to obtain, but without them we cannot call this article comprehensive, Hurricane Katrina does detail the limited effects in Cuba for example. The infobox also mentions the Great Lakes regions and Canada: what happened there? As for problems with the meteorological information, it is not clear from the prose if the minimum pressure of 936mbar occurred at landfall or whilst the storm was still at sea.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Katrina happened in 2005, when news spread quicker and more technology existed to track storms. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Massive external link farm needs to be pruned per WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:NOT and references and notes are not fully formatted. A whole lot of WP:UNITS work is needed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done the first and the third point. I'll work on the second point later. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One question: since when do we add &amp;nbsp;s before hours and minutes? I'm talking about something like 8&amp;nbsp;p.m.... I had never seen that before. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Numerical and non-numerical elements :-) If you think of it in terms of preventing line wrap, it makes complete sense.  The idea of non-breaking hard spaces is that we not have items separated by line wrap, so ...
 * Would you like to see 3
 * am ?
 * I add them on roads, highways and routes as well, and asked that they also be added to the 7
 * World Trade Center article, since separating the 7 from the WTC looked dumb. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, little is known about what happened outside of Galveston. There was flooding in Havana, Cuba and that's about all I've heard. There simply may not be information on what happened in other affected places, I can't imagine that someone hasn't looked. As to the lack of synoptic history, well, with storms before 1950, you're not gonna get much in the way of a meteorological deconstruction. IE: "Formed from a tropical wave that came off the African coast at such and such date and moved westward in response to a high pressure ridge to the north..." We can certainly look, but most of those kind of judgements involved a lot of guesswork in those days. Certainly these things are something to look into, but I don't think it should jeopardize the status of the article. -- § Hurricane E  RIC  archive 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if we don't have information on the deaths the storm caused in the mid-west, the NE US and Canada the current status is not really deserved. Its not like we do not have reliable sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nilfanion, his point is that there are unlikely to be any reliable sources that specifically address the following. We need a good-faith effort to find this, but if that effort fails then the lack of information should not count against the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concerns is comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No matter how hard I look, I cannot find any sources that talk about the storm's impact outside Galveston. I've already searched several databases, such as EBSCOhost, Lexis-Nexis, and Jstor, but I cannot find either a primary source from the period, nor a secondary source describing non-Galveston effects. If anyone finds anything that can help the page satisfy WP:V for new info, please put them here. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seek in the NYT archives with suitable queries and there ye shall find. Try other major papers too and follow up leads from the new information and you'll find more. Further meteorlogical info is also out there too.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and how about the actual article on the storm in the monthly weather review?--Nilfanion (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove unless information is added; no progress since FAR started on that. I'd expect information about Cuba, the Gulf Coast, elsewhere in Texas and right along the storm's track to the dead fishermen off Newfoundland.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Storm affected town which was one of the largest and wealthiest at the time of landfall, however in 2008, town is no longer notible on global scale. This should not affect, nor be a factor in removal of the article from feature status. Due to limits of media & forecasting of the day, limited information exists outside of where it made landfall (although NY Times and NWS archives some information). However, given the amount of information that does exist, it should not negate the impact it made on Texas and the 6,000-12,000 people who died; nor does it negate the fact that the storm is a poster child of what *can* happen in a storm. History repeats itself, especially if we reduce the importance or visibility of previous lessons learned. Nsaum75 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurricanes are not point events. Hurricane Katrina deals primarily with the impact of that storm on the Gulf Coast; like you would expect. However,inland effects are covered. "The most disastrous storm that has visited this section in several years" would make it notable in its own right (judging from current standards), and that's purely the effects in/near Ohio. Information is there, to leave it out is to not be comprehensive.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that I have come to a slow point here at my work, I'll dig through NYT and the weather reports to try to give the article a more "national" perspective. Suprised that no one had done so as of yet. Nsaum75 (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Closing: I appreciate WhisperToMe's suggestion of waiting, but we can only wait so long. No work is happening here. I think the citation and comprehensiveness concerns raised are non-trivial. Marskell (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove the article has a unique narrative but I can see where the (1b) criticism is coming from. It reads as if written from a Galveston perspective instead of a third party perspective.  Deatonjr (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delay- per WhisperToMe. I think with some good faith research this article can be improved upon without having to revoke its FA status Deatonjr (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep taking into account the era in which the event occurred and the extent of technology & media available at the time, the article fills requirements to be a featured article. Lchaimgirl (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove - not quite FA worthy in my opinion. --♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delay the decision until a good-faith effort to find reliable sources for adding information is taken. If reliable sources are found, of course the new information could be incorporated. If they are not found, the concerns above should not be counted against the article and my "Delay" vote will switch to "Keep" - I am not sure where to look for the information. If someone tells me, I will do my best. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The New York Times has some sources about the storm here: http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?frow=0&n=10&srcht=s&daterange=period&query=storm&srchst=p&submit.x=26&submit.y=14&submit=sub&hdlquery=&bylquery=&mon1=08&day1=27&year1=1900&mon2=09&day2=31&year2=1900 - This can help determine if the information about weather reports exists. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove Even if the comprehensiveness concerns were resolved, this would still fail 1c. Numerous specific facts/statistics and quotations are uncited throughout the article. Also, the many short stubby paragraphs should probably be combined. Budding Journalist 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.