Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1910 Cuba hurricane/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 20 February 2010 [1].

1910 Cuba hurricane

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/1910 Cuba hurricane/archive1

This storm was first considered to be two separate storms that struck in rapid succession due to its initially unknown loop. Its unfamiliar track led to extensive debate and research, and helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops. It was also deemed among Cuba's most significant natural disasters, but since the hurricane occurred exactly 100 years ago, information is somewhat scarce. Interested yet? Happy reading. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments:~~

Cuba — "The city of Casilda was devastated." Any way of using a conjunction? Actually the whole sub-section seems a bit dot pointy. Also, shouldn't "city" have a capital? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean to be honest... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the sentence is too short and should be joined with another. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better as it is, but feel free to change it if you feel it's necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I don't know a great deal about cyclones; however, this looks comprehensive considering the sources that are available - or as I'm lead to believe. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine read, but I think more coverage of how the storm "helped forecasters understand cyclones that underwent similar loops" is needed. "[E]xtensive debate and research" would appear to require a section of discussion, rather than a sentence. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - What is there is excellent ~~but the article is missing an ==Aftermath== section, which is the place where a discussion about the research and lessons learned from this storm would go.~~ --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 03:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth. I can't find any journals or documents that would provide enough info for an entire section on it (especially considering that it occurred 100 years ago). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One source should be enough to create a paragraph on the topic. I'm sure WikiProject Cyclone members will chime in if more is needed than that. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's only a couple sentences in the book, though. I doubt I'd be able to get any more information on that particular topic without resorting to OR. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google books seems to confirm that. I'll add my conditional support and condition it on others not finding comprehensiveness issues. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing: Is Florida Fun Facts the best we can do? I'm sure there are more respectable and trustworthy sources to draw upon. I see it's not cited inline; I might consider just removing it, or at least confining it to a "Further reading" section. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum (again): "Well, there's only one source that mentions subsequent research of the storm in depth." If that's the case, you really should mine that source. I'm sure there's more than a sentence there – in fact, you confirm it: "... a couple sentences in the book..." Is it possible for you to get to a physical library to find out more? I'm pressing the issue because the "extensive research" line at the end of the first section really left me hungry for more, and feeling that information was missing. There must be sources out there; "extensive research" is published. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the superfluous source. As for adding more information, I don't know what else to say. There's nothing further on the topic in any of my tropical cyclone books, nothing in the Monthly Weather Review as far as I can see, and nothing in Google's newspaper archive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- ~~Julian! You have two last name first refs in your "general refs" then the last one is first name first! Consistency! (Normally I'd fix this myself but you know better!)~~
  - Ugh, sorry. Trouts for me I suppose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes http://www.cubahurricanes.org/history-hurricanes-chronicles.php a reliable source?
  - Normally it wouldn't be a reliable source, but I'm only using it to demonstrate an extreme unofficial report, so in the context it's being used in I think it's OK. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment too short and ignores too many sources. I'll be sending them to you Julian, and I've incorporated a few facts myself, but am pressed for time. Cool three (talk) 16:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Looks good to me now. Cool three (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added quite a bit more with the new sources (thanks!). There's a lengthy report of a shipwreck I'll add in eventually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several additional paragraphs of text. Hopefully your comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~OpposeLeaning to support~~ Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a good lead (I wish the lead from the other cyclone article was as good), and indeed the first couple of paragraphs are pretty good, until we get here: "The storm is unusual in that due to its cyclonic loop near Cuba, initial reports suggested that it was actually two separate cyclones." I'm not the most scientifically inclined, but I haven't got a clue what you meant. Its cyclonic loop near Cuba led some to believe that it was actually two separate cyclones? Okay, but what is a cyclonic loop? Is it because it was near Cuba that it was thought to be two cyclones, or the path of its loop. I'm guessing that the path of the cyclone went northward, but at some point circled around to the west or east, came back at Cuba, and went over the tip of it again, a couple of days later. This is right?

The paragraph just before it explains the loop. I'm not sure what more I could add to make it more clear. Also, what other cyclone article? There are around 900. :-) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the other one in FAC right now (Australian cyclone). Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizationally, after you get out of this section, the article is choppily presented.

~~Two sentences on preparation? ????~~

The section on the ship Holliswood seems to be dropped into the middle of the article, but without much preparation for it. A map is included for no apparent reason other than that this is a map of Florida; although it shows counties, is that relevant to this article? How about a map showing the path of the cyclone through the state? "thousands of peasants were reported homeless"..... were these peasants in Florida or Cuba? Or both? What were the complexities of cyclone preparation in Cuba and Florida in 1910? And what happened to the Captain of the Holliswood?

peasants?

Given that the storm occurred in 1910, there's not a lot on preparations. I renamed the "preparations and impact" section to simply "impact".

~~What were the procedures for warning people about hurricanes? This one came in the night, did it? There had been one in 1899 that did, and caused immense damage in PR.~~ Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, outside of speculation, there's not a lot more I've found. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the organization... I'm not sure how to address that. The section as a whole goes in chronological order from Cuba to southern Florida to northern Florida, and since the ship was caught in the hurricane between Cuba and Florida, it seems only logical to reflect that in the article. As for the image... I dunno, there's not a lot (and adding another track would be utterly useless), so it breaks up the text and adds a bit of context for foreign readers. As for that sentence you mentioned, the surrounding context appears to make it quite clear. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps there would be a way to show some of the locations of intense damage. As it is, it's a meaningless image, to show modern-day counties for a 1910 event, and not show the track, or highlight areas of the most damage. A different image of the hurricane? Dunno. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You're right. Removed then. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm also confused about the citations and the~~ lack of bibliography; ~~does "general" mean you read them but you didn't cite them? I've run into this in another editor's work, and I get as confused there as I am here.~~ Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could change it to something else, but it's really a matter of personal preference. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no-no, I'm not quibbling with the heading names, but with the lack of bibliography. What does "general" mean, as opposed to "specific" and why are "general" citations included in "specific citations? What is the difference in these sources? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same Holliswood? Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this article has information on the damage in Florida. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find. I'll see if it has anything useful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noaa puts a name on the person who developed the theory of the loop. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's very relevant, though. A newspaper from right after the storm mentions the possibility of it being a single cyclone. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf should be capitalized, though, because it refers to the specific Gulf of Mexico. If the sentence were, hurricanes pick up power and speed over a shallow gulf.... then no, it is not capitalized. But in this case you are using the word as a shortened form of the name, thus it should be capitalized because it refers to a specific Gulf, the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not going to reverse it, but it should be capitalized. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. WP:MOSCAPS says Offices, positions, and job titles such as president, king, emperor, executive director are common nouns and therefore start with a capital letter only when followed by a person's name, in other words when they have become part of the name: "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "Mitterrand was the French prime minister" or "There are many prime ministers around the world." I don't see why it should be any different for place names. (I'll ask Tony1 to comment, though). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

yes, and when you're writing an article about President Nixon, and you refer to him by his title, you capitalize President. Or an article about Queen Elizabeth, you'd capitalize Queen when you refer to a specific queen, but not when you refer to just general queenship. But if you write, a president could do x, then you don't capitalize president. I get tangled up on this all the time, when I write about this and that Holy Roman Emperor, and I'm always told to capitalize Emperor, as in the Emperor, when I'm referring to a specific one (Emperor Joseph). Since you are referring to a specific body of water, and you are using the first word of its name as an shorthand for the whole name, I think it should be capitalized. I would argue, though, that the same rules that govern Celestial bodies should also govern capitalization with geographic entities. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the MoS is not explicit about the short-form usage of such an item as "the gulf" or "the Gulf", even though "the" is specific ("You know the gulf I mean: the Gulf of Mexico, not some other gulf"). My immediate feeling is G, but I've sought further advice from User:Noetica. The MoS needs to say something about this. Its examples of "the city" don't make it clear that "the city" could refer to a particular city-name. Tony (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica writes:

Unless it refers to the Gulf of Mexico as a mere gulf among gulfs or among natural features generally (for comparison or "geophysical" description), definitely "Gulf", not "gulf". Compare:

the Queen the Rock (Ayers Rock [Uluru]) the Prom (Wilsons Promontory, Victoria) the Harbour (Sydney Harbour)

I don't think the presence or absence of "the" in the full name makes any difference. If "Gulf" is capped in the full name, it is capped in the short name. Compare and contrast "the river Ganges" (most common capping), referred to as "the river" with lowercase preserved, except in personifications or evocations. (Tony (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Noetica writes further:

I've now had a chance to look at the context:

"... the storm began to drift northwestward and rapidly deepen over warm waters of the Gulf."

Cap it, I say. While that body of water is mentioned as a purely physical entity, its being a gulf qua gulf is not relevant. It might have been the "waters of the bay" or "waters of the straits" without change in relevant detail. More salient is its identity, given here by naming it.

How this should feed into a MOS guideline is another matter. Something has to be added; but it must be robust and simple. (Tony (talk) 05:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds good. Done. Thanks for the help (to Noetica as well!) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a few other prose issues: ~~:Weather two storms have been raging in Cuban waters within the past week, or whether the same storm...~~

in Lead: Although total monetary damage from the storm is unknown, it is estimated that at least 100 deaths occurred in Cuba alone. This seems strange, and also not true, since you put specific amounts on losses later. How about: Although total monetary damage caused by the storm is unknown, estimates of losses in Havana exceeded a million dollars and in the Florida keys, $250,000. At least 100 people died in Cuba alone, and at least 20 died in Florida.

~~revenue cutter. Should be Revenue (same reason as "Gulf") (Department of Revenue).~~

The inlet being closed the rivers rose 8 feet above normal high water, which in a flat country like this, puts practically all land under water from 1 to 8 feet. Which inlet? and this is largely unintelligible to people who don't know Jupiter. Although it's a quote, you should probably translate it.

However, very little damage occurred in and around the city. Nonetheless, due to persistent northeasterly winds, low-lying coastal areas were flooded. ? Although little damage occurred in and around the city, persistent northeasterly winds caused the flooding of low-lying coastal areas.. Minor flooding extended.... The sentence on the citrus crop should go in one of the earlier paragraphs on Jupiter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of the majority of this, except the quote... it's a direct quote, so it's best not to change it too much here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it's a direct quote. I'm just suggesting that you translate it into something literate after you quote it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's illiterate about it? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean legible. Even then it doesn't make much sense. Maybe intelligible. *shrugs* —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intelligible, literate, understandable, whatever word you want to use. just a thought. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Only a few minor quibbles to report after a full reading:

Non breaking space needed inside $1 million in the lead and the body.
Meteorological history: Italics for Monthly Weather Review.
A period is missing from the end of the next-to-last paragraph of the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Supports Aaroncrick and Auntieruth55

Struck oppose from Cool three. Oppose is struck, but I couldn't find a support.

conditional support from mav, but this editor hasn't been back, and it does look like Julian dealt with the issues raised.

Source review: Ealdgyth, and it's unresolved.

Dabomb checked the dabs and they apparently have been taken care of.

Image review? I couldn't find it. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth's review isn't unresolved, I think we simply just disagree on the reliability of a particular source. As for the image review, everything is extremely straightforward, so there should be no issues with that. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My support was conditioned on subject mater experts not finding comprehensiveness issues. I don't think such issues have been found, so my support should be assumed until/if such issues are expressed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 13:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.