Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/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 kept 06:28, 17 May 2007.

Review commentary

 * Messages left at User talk:Brian0918, Lakes, and Meteorology. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ''Suggested improvements listed at Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913/to do.

I didn't get the chance to review the article's content but noticed a major problem in the article. The article has basically no inline citations (violating 1c). — An as  talk? 15:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, the article does have inline citations where necessary. Second, 1c says inline citations are only necessary for quotations or controversial content (this article has stirred no controversy, AFAIK). I created this article from scratch and have watched every edit to it since. No vandalism or other degradation has occurred to the article; indeed, only about 80 edits have been made since it was featured on the main page over 2 years ago. David Brown, who wrote the book on this storm, personally reviewed the article and confirmed its factuality and comprehensiveness. I wrote this article basically by reading all of the sources and coming up with the most accurate and complete version of the events. As a result, inline citations are not always possible, but can be added easily enough where necessary. At best, this is a problem for the article's talk page . The important part is that the article does cite ALL of its sources. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 15:47Z
 * Brian, please see the instructions I am about to post on your talk page; we don't declare "keep" or "remove" status during the review phase. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 15:58Z
 * Comment: Brian, you need to relax. Remember that we're trying to review, improve and keep the article featured. I'm not trying to rid the article of its status. I see a lot of numbers and quotations that have no inline citations; that is my main concern. The article also has many one-line paragraphs, not something I'd like to see in a featured article. Let's try to keep this an FA. I'll offer my help if you are going to need it. — An as  talk? 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am relaxed. I simply like to add emphasis to the important points in my comments. Emphasis != shouting/rage/nonrelaxation. (Please AAGF) I see no one-line paragraphs. Which are you referring to, and how do you suggest they be changed? I prefer conciseness over length, but am willing to expand any deficits in coverage. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 16:21Z
 * There are a few out there which I think can be merged with other paragraphs. For example: "At 10:00 AM, Coast Guard stations and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Weather Bureau offices at Lake Superior ports raised white pennants above square red flags with black centers, indicating a storm warning with northwesterly winds."; "The greatest damage was done on the lakes. Major shipwrecks occurred on all but Lake Ontario, with most happening throughout southern and western Lake Huron." But again, this is not my biggest concern, I still recommend that inline citations (following "footnote fashion") are used, at least in places where numbers are mentioned and after quotations. — An as  talk? 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. Are there any quotations lacking inline citations? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 16:56Z
 * Done: Merged together the suggested paragraphs. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 17:54Z
 * Done: Added ref for financial costs (as you requested on the todo page). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 18:49Z
 * Thanks a lot. — An as  talk? 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: There are several inline citations in the article, e.g. "The weather forecast in The Detroit News called for "moderate to brisk" winds ..." (with the date being mentioned in the previous sentence). They might not follow the current footnote fashion, but they're there. And as Brian said, there has not been any evident controversy over any statements in the article (just look at the talk page), so criterion 1c is met by default. Having said that, there are a few minor points that might be worth tidying up. For instance, some of the wikilinking could be improved (I've made a start); there's an obsolete tag on Image:Storm-Warning-NW-Winds-Flags.png; and the prose could be tightened in places (e.g. "Personal accounts of lake masters were that ..." seems a bit indirect to me). -- Avenue 16:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This sentence in the lead section is not covered in the rest of the article: "The large loss of cargo, including coal, iron ore, and grain, meant short-term rising prices for consumer products throughout North America." Add to Aftermath section. It seems surprising that prices in Mexico would be affected, so this could do with a source. I'll add this to the To Do list. -- Avenue 00:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find that source anymore. Most likely it's Brown's book, but I don't have it, and can only search through it on Amazon. I've reworded the statement to give specifics about the amount of lost cargo. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 &bull; 2007-04-11 14:02Z
 * Comments There's a problem with over-Wikilinking. See WP:CONTEXT.  Example&mdash;The large loss of cargo, including coal, iron ore, and grain, meant short-term rising prices for consumer products throughout North America.  Also, non-breaking hard spaces are needed between numbers and units of measurement; I did some as an example.  Also, please see WP:GTL regarding the use of Seealso templates at the beginning of sections; See alsos are incorrectly listed at the bottom of sections.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * News sources need article titles, dates, authors if available:
 * The Port Huron Times-Herald (Nov. 1913). various dates and pages.
 * See WP:QUOTE, and all direct quotes should be cited (e.g.; Keller and the next one.) Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions. The wikilinking is easy enough to reduce, as is the Seealsoing and the quote citing. As for the Port Huron Times-Herald sources, those will take more time. Several of the newspaper's issues from that month are online. And anyone wanting all the issues from that month can submit an ILL request at their library for the microfilm reel for Nov. 1913. &mdash; BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 16:56Z
 * Done: Added citations to the uncited quotes you mentioned. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 17:08Z
 * Done: Moved all the See alsos to the top of their sections, as you requested. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 17:12Z
 * Thanks! What is the Lake Carriers' Association report, 1913 and how/where does one find it?  Also, don't forget the nbsp needed throughout.  The MilHist group frequently mentions the problems inherent in casualty counts (which are often controversial or disputed in natural diseasters as well); those numbers should be cited to a source.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done: Added source for LCA report. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 17:26Z
 * Done: It looks like all of the nbsp's have been added where necessary. Thanks for your help! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 17:59Z
 * Done: Reduce wikilinking; I think it's been reduced enough. Let me know of any other delinking that should be done. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 18:16Z
 * Done: Added source for casualty counts. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 18:42Z
 * Done: I clarified the reference for the newspaper, and added a link to a site with transcripts of the relevant articles. There are too many articles/authors to list in our article, though, so I think we'll have to stick with this general citation. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 19:57Z
 * Please add suggested improvements to Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913/to do. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-10 17:30Z
 * Comment Thumbnail images are not supposed to have pixel widths, it conflicts with user preferences. Jay32183 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, where does it say that? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS "* Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width in order to enhance the readability and/or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:


 * On images with extreme aspect ratios
 * When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts
 * When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region

Bear in mind that some users need to configure their systems to display large text. Forced large thumbnails can leave little width for text, making reading difficult." The text is being squashed by the images in the aftermath section by forcing 350px and 250px respectively. Jay32183 18:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I've removed the thumbnail resizings as requested. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-29 15:46Z

FARC commentary

 * Suggested FA criteria concern is lack of citations (1c). Marskell 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: A lot of work was done by Brian on this. I'm moving it down because it's been up a while and more work remains. A few notes:
 * Lengthy quotations sections are increasingly frowned upon as trivia. Incorporate the best into the text.
 * The lead is somewhat over-cited, while the body has very few. This inverts the usual structure.
 * The victims list definitely requires citations. Marskell 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This absurd! The article for no reason should be moved from FAR to FARC. All the requests here have been rapidly resolved, even the ones that do not cite FA criteria problems. As for your notes:
 * The victims list already has the necessary inline citation.
 * The lead's citations were added as requested; more people read the lead, so more citations are requested for the lead. Most of the citations in the full text are inline citations; and as 1c states: inline citations are only necessary for "quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged"; as all requests for citations have been resolved, there's no further need for inline citations - if you want to request another citation, feel free. The article does list all of its sources in the References section as required by 1c.
 * The quotations are only a small segment of the article, and are not against any FA criteria, right? They do however help to illustrate the article better than any chronological account or diagram, so I think they're quite important to the article, and of interest to readers. If you think they should be trimmed down, that's fine, but they shouldn't cause a FA to be de-featured. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 16:00Z
 * Are you considering my edits to be vandalism now, since you've used the rollback button to undo my contesting of your move to FARC; why haven't you at least replied first? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 16:50Z


 * Brian, I'm about to but just lost my response in an edit conflict. Wait for it. Marskell 16:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * First, moving to FARC is a "no harm" process. It's two more weeks. Plenty of time for talking, and given that FAR is watched by a small group nothing will get accidentally defeatured. The FARC sections allows people to express keep or remove. We do it for every article unless there's a definite keep consensus early, and we ought to do it for this one. In fact, I'm thinking of posting at the top don't worry if it moves, as this has come up a few times. I'm going to move this again. I apologise for the rollback; I was going to comment immediately.


 * On the specifics:


 * Noted. Sorry.
 * This inverts the usual thinking on LEADs. Because the info is usually more general, it's less likely to need citing.
 * No, the criteria do not specifically disallow quotations sections, but I'd suggest they're deprecated as they're rapidly disappearing. Like trivia sections they often violate 4. I'd by interested in third opinions on this score. Marskell 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Moving from Featured Article Review to Featured Article Removal Candidates gives someone who has worked hard on an article the impression that you are saying "We should now try to de-feature this article"; whether that was your intention, I don't know, but I don't see the reason to move it to FARC when all the mentioned problems have been resolved. My impression from the lead section of WP:FAR is that you only moved to FARC those articles that have unresolved problems: "The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list." As for your points: I only provided citations where people requested; whether it looks weird or not, I don't know. It doesn't go against FA criteria (which is the point of FAR/FARC, right?). I don't see any reason for removing those citations. As for quotes, I've already stated why I think they should stay, but I'm fine with moving them to wikiquote, for example. Is this article going against any FA criteria? If not, why is it being advanced from FAR to FARC??? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 17:25Z


 * One other note on the body. In practice, citations are usually demanded for statistics. There's a whole lot of ## mph stats here, so it would mean citing every other sentence, which we don't want. A couple of notes like "See Brown ## - ## for wind speeds on X day" would do. Marskell 17:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the change you're suggesting. Is someone contesting the numbers? Are you saying the numbers should be removed? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 17:26Z


 * OK, I understand that it can give the wrong impression, and I didn't mean to. Note the FARC period itself is never cut short if there's someone willing to work on it. Thus, the FAR to FARC move is basically procedural because the FAR page needs to keep moving (we've got thirty-six up, which is a lot), while the clincher is the final close. So it's basically no big deal; it just allows more time for people to come and comment. I've moved two hundred of these and we do need to be consistent about it. If all of the people who were active in the review period have clearly said "this can close," then it's closed without FARC. That hadn't happened here, it has been up for sixteen days, and there'd been no activity for nine.


 * On the numbers: by their nature statistics are challengeable and ought to be cited. I'm not suggesting removing them at all. As I say, one or two notes can easily handle it.


 * I'm also not suggesting removing cites from the lead. I'm wondering if the lead might be over-specific relative to the body and whether things might not move rather than be removed. Marskell 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I just didn't understand what you wanted to cite. I guess you meant to place footnotes at the end of the paragraphs/sections for more information? As for the lead section citations, they are all for contested statements or numbers. It's not overly specific, since it's just summarizing the damages. I've merged some refs together so it's not as cluttered. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 17:43Z


 * Yes, at the end of paragraphs/sections. For November 9, for instance, you could have two summative notes pointing to page numbers for the path of the storm and the wind speeds/nature of the storm. As for the lead, I was thinking of filling it out myself, as it doesn't describe enough of what the body covers. But I'm checking out for now. Marskell 17:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I've expanded the lead to list the aftermath/results of the human response to the storm. If you have any other requests, let me know. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 18:05Z
 * Done I've added the requested citations for the wind speeds and other figures for those dates. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-26 18:46Z
 * To be honest Marskell I'm not sure I understand how moving this from one place to another on the same page keeps things moving. And your argument, which basically amounts to saying that the shift from FAR to FARC is irrelevant, doesn't hold a lot of water. The major problem with this move is that by putting it here you are saying it is ready for final evaluation. And since someone is still working on it, it is likely that any evaluations made here will shortly become invalid -- anyone who does take the time to comment is quite possibly wasting their time. The point is, there is very little point moving an article to FARC if you expect any significant amount of further work to be done on it. Why ask people to make a keep/remove decision on a version of the article that will shortly be overwritten? Clarification -- this doesn't necessarily apply in this case although it might be helpful to ask Brian how it is coming before advancing the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be helpful. If you'd like to contact all the original nominators before things get moved to FARC, let me know. Day 13 would be the right time to do it.


 * On the specifics here: well done, Brian. I've argued (often with limited success) that summative footnotes, rather than a footnote every two lines, is the way to approach these 1c debates. I think this article is now a good example of doing this right. On the lead, I just added two sentences, mentioning Huron and Nov 9. Hope that's the right amount of ummph.


 * That leaves the quotations section. I'm still very iffy and hope for more feedback. Marskell 22:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much contacting the original nominator as contacting people who are working on the article to see how it is progressing. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes. As I say, if you're volunteering, give me a ding-a-ling. Marskell 22:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Remove per 1a and 1c. Article has lack of citations and also the "Quotations" section is nothing but a trumped up "Trivia" section. LuciferMorgan 11:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be absurd. 1c says inline citations are only necessary for quotations, contested content, or likely-contested content. Are you contesting any of the content? If so, let me know which sentences you contest, and I'll stick a normally-unnecessary inline citation next to it. I can say with certainty that the References section has every citation for every single word in the article. So, for you to immediately go straight to "Remove!" without any previous discussion shows a lack of interest on your part to improve the quality of the article, which is the entire point of Wikipedia. As for the quotations, I'll move them to wikiquote, but I don't see how 1a covers quotations in the way you claim. The article prose is excellent, and I was surprised by the number of positive comments I got regarding the quality and engagement of the article, which is exactly what 1a says is necessary. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-29 15:15Z
 * Done Quotations moved to Wikiquote. As for the citations, the article cites all of its sources under References, and as is required by 1c, all quotations, contested and likely-contested content have inline citations, so 1c is satisfied. If you believe otherwise, let me know which contested/likely-contested content you believe needs inline citations, and I'll get right on it. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-29 15:27Z


 * Comments There are still month-day dates that aren't wikilinked. Where did the mph–kph conversions come from &mdash;they suffer from a lot of rounding error.  There is a template somewhere on Wiki that does the conversion.  The exact data cited in the sources should be used, and converted accurately.  There is still an awful lot of uncited hard data.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The months/dates were delinked as requested in the original FAC. They can be relinked easily enough, but what does this have to do with Featured Article Criteria? All of the hard data is cited under References, or inline citations at the end of each paragraph. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 00:50Z


 * Given that there so many ## mph stats and only one book, line-by-line citing seemed silly; I asked Brian for summative notes, and these have been provided. Looking more closely, a few more suggestions:
 * Quotes from the newspapers ought to take specific cites.
 * Done &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 00:58Z
 * The Cause section needs a cite. It's a neat little geography lesson; point us to some pages.
 * Done. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 14:31Z
 * The paragraph beginning "In retrospect..." could be read as OR without a cite.
 * Done &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 01:06Z
 * There are a half dozen refs but only Brown in the notes. Are there any large bits taken from elsewhere? Marskell 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest of the references are used to back up/verify claims made in Brown. As I've said, I wrote the article by reading all of the sources, and coming to a general conclusion about what happened (although the most weight was given to Brown); this is the way articles should be written, but too often people just google for random factoids and build an article from that... in the end they end up with one huge piece of OR. I think I've satisfied your concerns. Let me know if you have any more. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 14:31Z


 * Anyhow, we're in good shape here. Marskell 20:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I concur with Sandy here, and think this article isn't in good shape, but I welcome comments from others who have yet to comment. LuciferMorgan 21:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Where did she say that? We shouldn't speak in generalities anyhow. This is broadly a single book FA. We've seen these before (eg. Moe Berg recently). I don't have reason to mistrust these if we can trust the primary editor, and Brian is working quickly to address things. LEAD is good (The odd "In its legacy..." just caught me though); nice pace; good but not excessive specifics. If there are structural problems that you think make it not in good shape, explain them. Marskell 22:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What's not in good shape? What parts? If you can't provide any useful commentary, it just looks like you're out to delist FA's. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 00:50Z
 * Can we please stick to the article? Plainly criticising me personally with comments like "Don't be absurd", "looks like you're out to delist FA's" and "shows a lack of interest on your part to improve the quality of the article" isn't a means of achieving co-operation on saving this FARC. Working in a healthier environment is though. LuciferMorgan 10:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let's stick to the article. You can start by telling me what's not in good shape? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 12:11Z


 * Brian, you've worked hard on this article, and it's admirable. So it's natural that you're a little defensive when faced with criticism. But please cool it; nothing is served by heated emotion in this room. WRT 1a, I find that much of the prose reads very well, but there are glitches. Why not get someone else who's good at copy-editing and likes the topic to give it a thorough run-through? At the tope, we shouldn't be finding things like "over-turning" (no hyphen). More subtle improvements can be made, too: "to ever hit the lakes" better as "ever to hit the lakes" (and I'm not an anti-split-infinitive person). "The era's weather reports"—sounds like paleohistory. Remove "In its legacy". Pluralise "response". "This added heat postpones the Arctic outbreak in the region"—"outbreak" is normally dramatic; here, a gradual process is at issue, isn't it? These are just a few examples of why the whole text needs treatment. Worth it, because it's a good article overall. Tony 13:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I'm not in "heated emotion"; I've simply placed emphasis around unanswered questions. Second, I'm fine with criticism. I'm not find with drive-by-voting. Criticism that is unactionable is not criticism. As I said already, I was surprised by the number of compliments I got regarding the prose. I'll fix any suggestions you have, but I'm confident that overall, the article text is well-written. The suggestions you've made thus far do not constitute a need to delist the article - do you agree? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 13:25Z
 * Done I've made your requested changes. For future reference, these changes were minor enough that you could've made them yourself without dispute. Your generalization of a few minor quibbles in the lead section to "the whole article needs treatment" is obviously not correct. I'll be happy to make any changes you request, but when the article has gotten multiple compliments specifically about the prose, a claim that the article is poorly written will need to be specific. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 13:34Z
 * I've gone through the article and made a few tweaks. I didn't see any obvious problems. Let me know if you find any. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 15:23Z


 * You've missed the point: those were examples of issues that occur throughout the text, and not intended to be fixed as an end in themselves. That is why I didn't fix them myself, as you suggested I might have done. They're not trivial. I'd appreciate it if your response hadn't been defensive and confrontational ("First, I'm not ...") You use the word "dispute"—Did I dispute something? My suggestion stands: another editor should be brought in to collaborate on polishing the prose. My comments are the basis of an issue that could be made actionable; I didn't feel that it was necessary, but if you're in a confrontational mood, we can change that. And making personal criticisms (drive-by voting, etc) is unpleasant, unwelcome, and inappropriate here. Tony 03:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, the drive by voting was solely due to your attitude of criticising people who criticise the article. If you hadn't gone out of your way to criticise others I would've gotten involved earlier. You said you aren't fine with drive by voting - well I'd like you to know I am 110% not fine with being criticised for no apparent reason either. LuciferMorgan 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. So, we can disregard your "drive by vote"? &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 16:01Z
 * Yeah that's fine. I will fully explain my vote shortly (ie. give examples etc.), which'll be tonight. Of course, you're free to decide whether you feel my reasons are adequate or inadequate - if you disagree with them, then we can agree to disagree. LuciferMorgan 16:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If they are simple changes, I would suggest just making them yourself, which will save us both a lot of time. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 16:47Z


 * Comment I've been watching this FAR for a few weeks now, and it seems that the only thing being done here is quabbling about references and problems with the prose. I must repeat Brian's sentiments that references should only be cited inline if there is controversial content, and only a few references per section should be fine. That said, I do believe the prose could use a once-over and a copyedit.  I will do this in a few days when I have time, unless someone else would like to take care of it in the mean time. - Running  On  Brains  18:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This article was given several once-overs and thorough copyedits when it first went through FAC, and the content hasn't really changed since then (I've watched every edit to the page, and it's not a very popular topic, so it doesn't attract editors or controversy). If you have any immediate suggestions, let me know. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 18:30Z

LuciferMorgan's concerns
From the November 11 Cleveland Plain Dealer:

"Cleveland lay in white and mighty solitude, mute and deaf to the outside world, a city of lonesome snowiness, storm-swept from end to end, when the violence of the two-day blizzard lessened late yesterday afternoon." "Take it all in all — the depth of the snowfall, the tremendous wind, the amount of damage done and the total unpreparedness of the people—I think it is safe to say that the present storm is the worst experienced in Cleveland during the whole forty-three years the Weather Bureau has been established in the city." — William H. Alexander, Cleveland's official observer

This is a direct quotation, and WP:CITE says "You should always add a citation when quoting published material." I don't have access to published material on the topic, so I cannot add a citation to this myself. LuciferMorgan 20:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done Woops, I missed that one. Added a source. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 20:32Z

The weather forecast in The Detroit News called for "moderate to brisk" winds for the Great Lakes, with occasional rains Thursday night or Friday for the upper lakes (except on southern Lake Huron), and fair to unsettled conditions for the lower lakes.

Since this is a quotation, this should also be cited. LuciferMorgan 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Done I missed that one too. Thanks! &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 20:59Z

This proved to be gravely unfortunate for the Great Lakes region, as the storm would have the better part of a day to build up hurricane forces before the Bureau headquarters in Washington, D.C., would have detailed information.

I agree with the above definitely, but it is an observation. An observation has to come from a reliable source. WP:CITE says "make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." LuciferMorgan 22:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are observations, and there are obvious statements. Every article doesn't have to prove that 1+1=2 whenever writing a mathematical equation. Such statements are a given. The same is the case here. It is obvious that the storm had a better part of a day to build up before the Bureau HQ would have information, and it is also obvious that this would be unfortunate for the people in the region. Example statements such as the one you quote are a necessity for writing an engaging article, rather than a series of lifeless, boring factoids. However, I believe those words can be sourced, so I'll see if I can add a proper citation. I don't think that this alone should be enough grounds for delisting an FA. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-04-30 23:16Z


 * I've just picked out ones where WP:CITE is not actually vague iin the matter. There are other statements I could ask for citation for, but this would be me and my interpration of WP:CITE (which is rather vague in explaining itself in my opinion). LuciferMorgan 00:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't use the word "unfortunate" without a citation. It's a judgement. All judgements need citations to show that they are not original research. Jay32183 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called writing prose. If we are out to deliver engaging and interesting content, we have to do more than just regurgitate factoids. All well-written articles have a certain amount of judgments like this. I'll find the proper source and rewording tomorrow. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 02:53Z
 * Yes, you can use the word "unfortunate" without a citation if it's unlikely to be challenged—we're supposed to use original prose. Marskell 11:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just been challenged twice Marskell, by me and Jay, so "unlikely" isn't the case here is it? LuciferMorgan 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The validity of that statement hasn't been challenged; it's only been suggested that we're not allowed to say such things, which isn't true. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 12:48Z
 * The statement hasn't been challenged because no credible reason why it might be wrong or misleading has been provided. And I doubt one will be, unless you want to suggest that the gap was "fortunate." Marskell 12:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been challenged twice and with credible reason Marskell. Also you can doubt whatever you wish - after all, we all know what you intend to do given your comments on this FARC don't we? You've made it explicitly clear you intend keeping this no matter how many credible reasons are given, and "credible / not" is according to your own interpretation. I don't want any further involvement in this biased FARC, especially when me, Jay and Sandy (who said "There is still an awful lot of uncited hard data") have expressed 1. c. problems while Tony has expressed 1. a. problems. But when the person who closes FARC dismisses everyone's issue with the article, what can us humble non admins do? Nothing. A sad state of affairs indeed. LuciferMorgan 16:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you very much Lucifer. See you around. Marskell 19:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LM, if Marskell has made errors on closings (and I don't think he has, although I did get after him about Microsoft :-), I'd much rather see someone who errs on the side of keeping an article than delisting it. Removing someone's hard-earned star shouldn't be done easily; if there's doubt or controversy, I'd say it's almost always best to err in favor of the article, and leave it for another day.  If an article truly has issues, it will surely be back. I record my concerns on FARs to leave a record for future editors who might want to improve certain aspects. I think FAR could quickly get into deep trouble if our closing admins were perceived as being too trigger happy.  It's only an article.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not closing articles I was concerned about, but rather everyone's concerns getting brushed aside by the person who closes FAR articles in this specific FARC - I prefer it when Marskell doesn't comment and remains independent until it's keep / save time, and not feeling as though consensus is irrelevant. LuciferMorgan 02:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've got me. I've always believed consensus is irrelevant. Why do I contact Tony on his talk? Simply for appearances' sake—I think his comments are rubbish and I ignore them. Similarly, I only collaborate with Sandy to make it look like I care. I don't actually think she knows what she's talking about, and given that I've already decided how I'm going to close I ignore her as well. The same logic applies to contacting editors on their talk, segmenting FAR and FARC, and my various status comments. It's all a ruse to make it seem like consensus matters to me, when in truth I'm drunk with power and get a secret thrill from brushing aside comments. Marskell 07:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What credible reasons have not been adequately addressed? You have to be more specific; what is not being cited, what problems are there with the prose? Just saying "1c and 1a are not satisfied" is useless and counterproductive. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 16:28Z
 * Lucifer, so far as I know you are free to close FARs (preferably those in which you have not participated). Historically anyone has been able to close these discussions, regardless of whether they are an admin. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Historically, only three people have regularly done it--Jeffrey G. for a year, and Joel and I for a year. I think it would be a very bad idea to throw it open, as has been detailed on FAR talk. But then I would say that; you can always raise another thread there. Marskell 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've certainly done it within the past two years, so that's simply not true. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I said "regularly." I don't believe there has been single close by anyone but Joel or I for ten months; I can't really speak for '05, though. Anyhow, this is getting side-tracked. We can talk about it on WT:FAR, if you like. Marskell 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome a discussion on the talk page. If "anyone" can start closing FARs, then anyone can close FACs, and then we've got a mess on our hands. Every time this comes up on talk, the consensus is the same.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul closes FACs because it was agreed that he would be the sole closer; there has been no such agreement for this process. If you feel that such an agreement would be productive you are welcome to suggest it; all in all I agree that it would probably be better discussed on talk. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes there has; we could certainly discuss further on talk, but the outcome would likely be the same. Marskell and Joelr31 close FARs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 12:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While me and Marskell disagree sometimes, I'm of the opinion he and Joel should remain the FAR closers. I have nothing against anyone here or anything, but I'm not going to contribute to this specific FARC as I've already had one block notice - I don't wish for the trouble. Thanks for your time. LuciferMorgan 21:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done I've reworded the contested bit to more closely match the reference, and added a proper inline citation, although entirely unnecessary in my opinion. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-01 16:44Z


 * Very happy for Tim and Joel to remain the predominant closers within an open system. If someone else closes in a way that appears problematic, the argument is that we have experts here, so why didn't you consult/warn/leave it to them? Tony 00:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had a go at that ugly opening (in terms of formatting). The date-range gobledygook is another reason for ignoring WP's broken down, outmoded system of autoformatting, which is still conflated with the linking system and won't allow date ranges. I now advise people not to date-link. I don't care what the MoS gasses on about. My rebuttal would be: fix it!

Which would you prefer:

November 7–10, 1913

or

November 7, 1913, to November 10, 1913

I'll put up with US date formatting to avoid the clutter and blue spattering; it's easier for all readers.

In the opening para, I've removed a few links and the ugly bolding, and what a difference it makes:

ORIGINAL

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow," the "Freshwater Fury," or the "White Hurricane," was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds that devastated the Great Lakes basin in the United States Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario from November 7, 1913, to November 10, 1913. The storm was most powerful on November 9, battering and overturning ships on four of the five Great Lakes, particularly Lake Huron. Deceptive lulls in the storm and the slow pace of weather reports contributed to the storm's destructiveness.

NEW

The Great Lakes Storm of 1913, historically referred to as the "Big Blow", the "Freshwater Fury" or the "White Hurricane", was a blizzard with hurricane-force winds that devastated the Great Lakes basin in the United States Midwest and the Canadian province of Ontario from November 7–10, 1913. The storm was most powerful on November 9, battering and overturning ships on four of the five Great Lakes, particularly Lake Huron. Deceptive lulls in the storm and the slow pace of weather reports contributed to the storm's destructiveness.

I suppose I'll support the retention of this FA, after the excessive linking throughout the article is removed. Why "streetcar", "power" (piped to "electric power"—gee, I didn't know what that was) and "autumn"? There are lots, and they dilute the valuable links. Tony
 * Even though wikilinking is not against any featured article criteria, I've unlinked the words you've requested. If you find any more, please make a request here, or be bold and make the change yourself. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-17 01:20Z

reprise

 * Retain. The citations are sufficient, and the article has been refreshed to meet all other criteria by a number of us ("us" means "Wikipedia editors", not "people with an attachment to the article"). – Outriggr § 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Also was able to verify a few Brown citations using "Amazon online reader". – Outriggr § 06:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how I've been verifying everything from Brown. I had the book out through the library before, when I actually wrote the article. &mdash; <b style="color:black;">BRIAN</b> 0918 &bull; 2007-05-17 13:02Z
 * 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.