1909 Grand Isle hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	1909 Grand Isle hurricane is part of the 1909 Atlantic hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 4, 2010 Good article nominee Listed January 17, 2022 Good topic candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on May 15, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1909 Grand Isle hurricane, which killed more than 370 people, is the eleventh deadliest tropical cyclone in US history?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Nice article, I'm glad to see one on this historic storm. Note that despite the sensational claim in a newspaper in Yukon, the French Quarter was NOT "swept away". The contemporary New Orleans area newspapers have better coverage of details of the storm in that city. As high ground, the Quarter escaped flooding, and wind damage was generally moderate, not nearly on the scale of the 1915 storm. -- Infrogmation ( talk) 17:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:1909 Grand Isle hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou ( Talk) 20:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and will be adding comments below. reply

Lead

• "was a large and deadly Category 3 hurricane" - what qualifies a hurricane to be called "deadly"?

  It's a matter of personal opinion but if a storm ranks among the deadliest on record, it easily qualifies as "deadly"

• "the hurricane wrought catastrophic damage" - what is the definition of a "catastrophic" hurricane?

  Widespread damage and loss of life. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• "making it the eleventh deadliest hurricane in United States history" - as of then or now?

  Tweaked to clarify Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Meteorological history

• "Operational analysis of the storm indicated that it attained the equivalent intensity of a Category 4 hurricane as it made landfall.[5] The storm's lowest pressure was also operationally listed as 931 mbar (hPa; 27.49 inHg). This pressure was based on operational estimates in relation to the system's storm surge and was not directly measured. However, later research of the storm determined that its winds had not exceeded 120 mph (185 km/h). - This is confusing, and possibly over technical. Since it turned out not to be true anyway, and since there is no practical effect of this estimation error described, I wonder it it needs to be included.

  I believe it should be included as the storm was listed as a Category 4 for several decades before re-analysis lowered its intensity in 2006. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Impact

• " Several lakes overflowed their banks as water from the Mississippi River back-flowed into them, inundating nearby lowlands.[18] The resulting floods, which inundated areas with upwards of 10 ft (3.0 m) of water," - repeat of "inundating", "inundated".

  Fixed Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

• Otherwise, the article seems fine although a little hard to follow, possibly because there are so many different locations and damage descriptions. But I am not sure what to recommend regarding that. Also, the wrong information, although later clarified, is confusing. Xtzou ( Talk) 21:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry I haven't gotten around to this yet. I'll try and address these later today, thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I've addressed most of the comments you had. Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 16:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

One more comment

• "The origins of the Grand Isle hurricane are believed to have begun" - weasel wording

Xtzou ( Talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Reworded Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 12:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Well written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou ( Talk) 12:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the review (and pass) Xtzou :D Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 13:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply