This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Any reason the image from "Meteorological history" isn't used here instead? It's significantly easier to read, and gives a better picture of the whole storm.
Convention, mostly. It's been universal WPTC practice to place the track map in the meteo. hist. section and show a "snapshot" illustration of the storm in the infobox: a satellite image for modern systems and a drawn weather map before that.
Lead
Its informal name in Puerto Rico — The same comment is made below, but it's unclear why the informal name from one region is being used over another.
This was the first tropical cyclone event in Puerto Rico for which
warning flags were used in conveying the level of danger to the public. — Is this really lead worthy? (It's also shortly after another sentence beginning "This was the...")
Whoops. I was reading that in edit mode, and completely missed that the other instance was in a footnote. That said, is the warning flag part lead worthy? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
In general, the lead seems somewhat long and could probably be trimmed some more.
It's certainly beefy, but given the breadth of impact (deep tropics, US, a large swath of Canada, plus multiple maritime tragedies) I think it's appropriate.
MOS:LEDELENGTH prescribes 2-3 paragraphs for articles of this size, so two substantial paras would be within reason. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Meteorological history
the storm system was noted north of Hispaniola. — Who noted it?
continued eastward into the North Atlantic for several more days — Until what? Presumably, it dissipated.
That's a good guess (it's the same one I'd make!), although sources don't specify. 19th century storm histories are very much incomplete; more often than not, the end of the track represents the end of reporting rather than the end of the storm itself. I could add, "...until its log in the database terminates on x day", although I worry that requires more disclaimers and modifiers than would be reasonable. Any thoughts? – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Something like "No further remnants of the storm were recorded after DATE" could work, although I'll leave this up to you; if you don't think it's worth adding something, no worries.
Puerto Rico
Any way to break up this long section with one or more subsections?
I've thought about this for a bit and am unable to come up with a strong solution. The impacts in PR are fairly uniform, and given it's a pretty small island, there aren't many distinct geographical regions upon which to base subheaders. Once again, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
leaving many residents unable to reach their homes for the night — Any word on where they spent the night?
500,000
Puerto Rican pesos. — Is there a way to convert this to something meaningful?
Frankly, I came up empty when I tried tying it to any other currency. I consulted with a few other natural disaster editors who all seemed to agree that posting the value with no comparison was better than not at all, so I'm not sure what to think.
The last paragraph starts out by discussing economic loss, then jumps to the etymology of the storm's name, then discusses retrospective views of the storm, and then pivots to its fatalities.
Well, it rounds out the overall impact with the most important figures and bits of historical context. I could rearrange the order of the sentences I suppose...? – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
United States
A closer pass to New England the following day — pass by New England?
The hurricane was described as — Who described it?
in
Oak Bluffs (then called Cottage City) on
Martha's Vineyard, "without a precedent during the summer season". — Sentence fragment.
the driving rain forced inside east-facing walls — forced its way inside?
The above four have been fixed as suggested.
Is the Mary Lizzie deserving of a red link? Seems significant given the losses.
Details of the ship and its sinking are scant; a hypothetical article would almost certainly be a permastub, likely better suited as a redirect to this article. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
One man held to floating debris — Assuming he is the one survivor from the Mary Lizzie, I would make this clear.
A yacht race set for August 21 around
Newport was postponed — Until when?
The newspapers gave an estimated rescheduling of between August 28 and September 10, but I can find no mention of when it actually happened. Should I include the range? – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Atlantic Canada
Why not just title this section "Canada"? "United States" isn't "Eastern United States".
There, the storm came to be known as the "Second Great August Gale" — Why does the article title favor the San Roque name, if there are actually two sobriquets?
Almost certainly not. As far as I can tell it's merely a patch of shallow reef that sometimes peeks above the waves. (There's a more substantial island of the same name a few miles to the SW, so bear this in mind if seeking sources.) – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"dashed to pieces" — Whose words?
All crew-members and passengers, totaling 24 people, were killed — By drowning? Also, given the heavy losses, are the ships worth red linking?
I'm not sure if the information is available regarding cause of death. I recall that newspaper articles mentioned evidence of traumatic blows to some of the deceased bodies, but I'm not prepared to speculate.
"sacrificed his own life in his endeavour to save those on board the two vessels". — Inline citation needed following a quotation.
whisked ashore — Not sure of the word choice here. "Whisked" doesn't conjure up an image of boats being smashed about, which seems to be what actually happened.
Yeah... there are a few words and phrases that we sadly end up using many, many times in these articles ("damage", "blown ashore") and sometimes I get a little too creative trying to get around that. Made more standard. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
one of them a local politician — What was his office?
Juliancolton, this looks pretty good. Has anything been said about the storm subsequently? For instance, given its destructiveness in some places, did it make some sort of a cultural impact such that talk of the storm continued for some time, and that would warrant a section on the subsequent history? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your detailed review, and for your helpful edits! Your time and efforts are both greatly appreciated. I'll begin working on this later in the day. Regards, – Juliancolton |
Talk15:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay, my initial fixes have been applied and responses posted where further action may be required. Your suggestions and edits (especially the arduous task of remedying my over-linking) have really helped improve the article. Thank you! Respectfully, I must object to two of your changes. First, per
WP:SHE4SHIPS, both "she" and "it" are acceptable pronouns, as long as they are used consistently within the article. I'm increasingly opposed to the use of feminine pronouns when discussing things that have no gender, so I'd like to restore the gender-neutral pronouns if possible. Also, while I appreciate the reason for removing the time zones in the lede, I feel they were necessary in these cases. 00:00 UTC on August 17 was still the evening of August 16 local time, so that could lead to some confusion (and, where multiple time zones are involved, it's preferable to use universal time). – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Juliancolton, this looks good. The lead still seems a bit on the long side, but at least reads naturally. Likewise, the sections on Puerto Rico, the United States, and Canada could all seemingly use some subsections, but I agree with you that I'm not sure where they would logically go. In any event, those are small concerns in what is clearly a good article, so I'm passing it now. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
01:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Move
Shouldn't this be moved to
1893 San Roque hurricane? To the people who view this page "que no hablan Español" (that don't speak Spanish), 1893 Hurricane San Roque will sound sort of weird.
Some examples:
@
Chicdat: I think you may have a point. The current name jives better with the Spanish of the time, but as you say, this is the English Wikipedia – and there's limited though fairly unequivocal precedence. I have no objections to the proposed move, though I wouldn't mind first hearing from the GA reviwer,
Usernameunique. Any thoughts? – Juliancolton |
Talk23:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Chicdat &
Juliancolton, that makes sense to me as well. "San Roque hurricane" did sound a bit odd when I first saw it. There are slightly more Google hits for "hurricane San Roque" than there are for "San Roque hurricane" (374 vs. 200), although this may be influenced by the Wikipedia name, and the numbers are low to begin with. I also think the convention for article titles is fairly important, and the ones listed by Chicdat suggest that a renaming would be in keeping with convention. So unless anyone has a compelling reason otherwise, I'd say go for it and make the move. With that said, I'd appreciate it if you hold off until I finish the GA review, as moving pages during that process can complicate things; I'll jump in and see if there's anything further that needs addressing now. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
01:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Any reason the image from "Meteorological history" isn't used here instead? It's significantly easier to read, and gives a better picture of the whole storm.
Convention, mostly. It's been universal WPTC practice to place the track map in the meteo. hist. section and show a "snapshot" illustration of the storm in the infobox: a satellite image for modern systems and a drawn weather map before that.
Lead
Its informal name in Puerto Rico — The same comment is made below, but it's unclear why the informal name from one region is being used over another.
This was the first tropical cyclone event in Puerto Rico for which
warning flags were used in conveying the level of danger to the public. — Is this really lead worthy? (It's also shortly after another sentence beginning "This was the...")
Whoops. I was reading that in edit mode, and completely missed that the other instance was in a footnote. That said, is the warning flag part lead worthy? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)reply
In general, the lead seems somewhat long and could probably be trimmed some more.
It's certainly beefy, but given the breadth of impact (deep tropics, US, a large swath of Canada, plus multiple maritime tragedies) I think it's appropriate.
MOS:LEDELENGTH prescribes 2-3 paragraphs for articles of this size, so two substantial paras would be within reason. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Meteorological history
the storm system was noted north of Hispaniola. — Who noted it?
continued eastward into the North Atlantic for several more days — Until what? Presumably, it dissipated.
That's a good guess (it's the same one I'd make!), although sources don't specify. 19th century storm histories are very much incomplete; more often than not, the end of the track represents the end of reporting rather than the end of the storm itself. I could add, "...until its log in the database terminates on x day", although I worry that requires more disclaimers and modifiers than would be reasonable. Any thoughts? – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Something like "No further remnants of the storm were recorded after DATE" could work, although I'll leave this up to you; if you don't think it's worth adding something, no worries.
Puerto Rico
Any way to break up this long section with one or more subsections?
I've thought about this for a bit and am unable to come up with a strong solution. The impacts in PR are fairly uniform, and given it's a pretty small island, there aren't many distinct geographical regions upon which to base subheaders. Once again, suggestions would be greatly appreciated. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
leaving many residents unable to reach their homes for the night — Any word on where they spent the night?
500,000
Puerto Rican pesos. — Is there a way to convert this to something meaningful?
Frankly, I came up empty when I tried tying it to any other currency. I consulted with a few other natural disaster editors who all seemed to agree that posting the value with no comparison was better than not at all, so I'm not sure what to think.
The last paragraph starts out by discussing economic loss, then jumps to the etymology of the storm's name, then discusses retrospective views of the storm, and then pivots to its fatalities.
Well, it rounds out the overall impact with the most important figures and bits of historical context. I could rearrange the order of the sentences I suppose...? – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
United States
A closer pass to New England the following day — pass by New England?
The hurricane was described as — Who described it?
in
Oak Bluffs (then called Cottage City) on
Martha's Vineyard, "without a precedent during the summer season". — Sentence fragment.
the driving rain forced inside east-facing walls — forced its way inside?
The above four have been fixed as suggested.
Is the Mary Lizzie deserving of a red link? Seems significant given the losses.
Details of the ship and its sinking are scant; a hypothetical article would almost certainly be a permastub, likely better suited as a redirect to this article. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
One man held to floating debris — Assuming he is the one survivor from the Mary Lizzie, I would make this clear.
A yacht race set for August 21 around
Newport was postponed — Until when?
The newspapers gave an estimated rescheduling of between August 28 and September 10, but I can find no mention of when it actually happened. Should I include the range? – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Atlantic Canada
Why not just title this section "Canada"? "United States" isn't "Eastern United States".
There, the storm came to be known as the "Second Great August Gale" — Why does the article title favor the San Roque name, if there are actually two sobriquets?
Almost certainly not. As far as I can tell it's merely a patch of shallow reef that sometimes peeks above the waves. (There's a more substantial island of the same name a few miles to the SW, so bear this in mind if seeking sources.) – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"dashed to pieces" — Whose words?
All crew-members and passengers, totaling 24 people, were killed — By drowning? Also, given the heavy losses, are the ships worth red linking?
I'm not sure if the information is available regarding cause of death. I recall that newspaper articles mentioned evidence of traumatic blows to some of the deceased bodies, but I'm not prepared to speculate.
"sacrificed his own life in his endeavour to save those on board the two vessels". — Inline citation needed following a quotation.
whisked ashore — Not sure of the word choice here. "Whisked" doesn't conjure up an image of boats being smashed about, which seems to be what actually happened.
Yeah... there are a few words and phrases that we sadly end up using many, many times in these articles ("damage", "blown ashore") and sometimes I get a little too creative trying to get around that. Made more standard. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
one of them a local politician — What was his office?
Juliancolton, this looks pretty good. Has anything been said about the storm subsequently? For instance, given its destructiveness in some places, did it make some sort of a cultural impact such that talk of the storm continued for some time, and that would warrant a section on the subsequent history? --
Usernameunique (
talk)
04:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your detailed review, and for your helpful edits! Your time and efforts are both greatly appreciated. I'll begin working on this later in the day. Regards, – Juliancolton |
Talk15:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Okay, my initial fixes have been applied and responses posted where further action may be required. Your suggestions and edits (especially the arduous task of remedying my over-linking) have really helped improve the article. Thank you! Respectfully, I must object to two of your changes. First, per
WP:SHE4SHIPS, both "she" and "it" are acceptable pronouns, as long as they are used consistently within the article. I'm increasingly opposed to the use of feminine pronouns when discussing things that have no gender, so I'd like to restore the gender-neutral pronouns if possible. Also, while I appreciate the reason for removing the time zones in the lede, I feel they were necessary in these cases. 00:00 UTC on August 17 was still the evening of August 16 local time, so that could lead to some confusion (and, where multiple time zones are involved, it's preferable to use universal time). – Juliancolton |
Talk19:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Juliancolton, this looks good. The lead still seems a bit on the long side, but at least reads naturally. Likewise, the sections on Puerto Rico, the United States, and Canada could all seemingly use some subsections, but I agree with you that I'm not sure where they would logically go. In any event, those are small concerns in what is clearly a good article, so I'm passing it now. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
01:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Move
Shouldn't this be moved to
1893 San Roque hurricane? To the people who view this page "que no hablan Español" (that don't speak Spanish), 1893 Hurricane San Roque will sound sort of weird.
Some examples:
@
Chicdat: I think you may have a point. The current name jives better with the Spanish of the time, but as you say, this is the English Wikipedia – and there's limited though fairly unequivocal precedence. I have no objections to the proposed move, though I wouldn't mind first hearing from the GA reviwer,
Usernameunique. Any thoughts? – Juliancolton |
Talk23:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Chicdat &
Juliancolton, that makes sense to me as well. "San Roque hurricane" did sound a bit odd when I first saw it. There are slightly more Google hits for "hurricane San Roque" than there are for "San Roque hurricane" (374 vs. 200), although this may be influenced by the Wikipedia name, and the numbers are low to begin with. I also think the convention for article titles is fairly important, and the ones listed by Chicdat suggest that a renaming would be in keeping with convention. So unless anyone has a compelling reason otherwise, I'd say go for it and make the move. With that said, I'd appreciate it if you hold off until I finish the GA review, as moving pages during that process can complicate things; I'll jump in and see if there's anything further that needs addressing now. --
Usernameunique (
talk)
01:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)reply