Talk:1916 Atlantic hurricane season

1916 Atlantic hurricane season 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.
Review: September 30, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Incorrect Information

According to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5105.html#1902_3 (scroll down to 1916 storm 1) the information for storm 1 is incorrect. This is a reputable information source coming direct off of the noaa database. Please review the site and make the appropriate revisions. Storm was was not only not a 45 mph tropical storm; it was a Category 3! The track is completely incorrect and citation is poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.121.48 (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there was a recent reanalysis for that time period that uncovered a bunch of new storms, not to mention alter the existing storms. The storm you are thinking of is now Hurricane #2. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/1916.pdf
- In 1916 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-05-25 02:44:15, Socket Error: 'No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it'
- In 1916 Atlantic hurricane season on 2011-06-02 02:46:19, Socket Error: 'No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it'

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1916 Atlantic Hurricane 14

You can clearly see the track of the hurricane and the low on these maps, they even have a track line drawn.[1], [2], [3] There is no other system there that absorbed the former hurricane. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dual Freq: A reanalysis conducted in 2008 (large document) determined that the remnant of the hurricane was absorbed into a frontal boundary while over Illinois on October 19. The older surface analyses wouldn't be updated to reflect this change so it's easy to mix up. In situ analyses may have improperly depicted the systems for various reasons. The updated track map indicates the earlier dissipation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then I would think that it would at least be worth mentioning that the storms merged. --Dual Freq (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1916 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6bxpFoAqi?url=http://www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/49EA64D0-305B-4881-8B85-04B518004BD5/0/Ciclones_en_PR.pdf to http://www.gobierno.pr/NR/rdonlyres/49EA64D0-305B-4881-8B85-04B518004BD5/0/Ciclones_en_PR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1916 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080819193937/http://www.heritagewnc.org/WNC_natural_disasters/1916_flood.htm to http://www.heritagewnc.org/wnc_natural_disasters/1916_flood.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1916 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 04:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The first storm, Tropical Storm One, appeared on May 13 south of Cuba, while the final system, Tropical Storm Fifteen" - it seems odd to highlight these unofficial names. It's not like it was known as "Tropical Storm One". I suggest "The first storm appeared... while the final tropical storm..."

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The early 20th century lacked modern forecasting and documentation, and thus, the hurricane database from these years may be incomplete. " - what does modern forecasting have to do with the database being incomplete?

Maybe adding "satellite imagery" would make that more clear--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a beef with describing certain storms by their article titles. For instance, the "Gulf Coast hurricane" and "Pensacola hurricane" could both arguably be the same storm, but they make sense for article titles. They just shouldn't be referred so generically.

"The most intense tropical cyclone of the season was Hurricane Six, also known as the Texas hurricane, which peaked as a Category 4 on the modern-day Saffir–Simpson scale. - I object to using both "Hurricane Six" and "known as the Texas hurricane." If it had a more commonly used name, sure, that would be fine, but it's just the place where it hit.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, "the Gulf Coast hurricane" isn't really a name. Saying "An early July hurricane along the northern Gulf Coast" is more informative than implying a name that isn't official.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Heavy rains from this storm set the stage for record-breaking floods by the Charleston hurricane" - likewise, this would be better if it was more descriptive, like saying "by a hurricane hitting Charleston in mid-July".

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Eight left severe damage and 50 deaths in Dominica"

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" In October, the Virgin Islands hurricane devastated the archipelago" --> "An early October hurricane devastated the Virgin Islands." Although is "devastated really appropriate?

Fixed. Yes, I think "devastated" is appropriate, especially when considering the impacts on Saint Croix, Saint John, Saint Thomas, and Tortola--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"That same month, the Pensacola hurricane was attributed to at least $100,000 in damage and 29 deaths, 20 of which occurred when a ship sank in the Caribbean Sea. " --> "The final hurricane landfall in the United States was a hurricane that struck Pensacola, which killed 29 people, 20 of which occurred when a ship sank in the Caribbean Sea." I don't mean to be nitpicky about the names, but I feel there is a better way of conveying the information.

I did something similar to your suggestion--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the hurricanes was also known as the Texas hurricane, which became the strongest tropical cyclone of the season, peaking at Category 4 intensity on the modern-day Saffir–Simpson scale with maximum sustained winds of 130 mph (215 km/h)" - apparently it was the strongest hurricane to hit the US in three decades. Per its article - " In terms of pressure, the 1916 Texas hurricane was stronger than any other landfalling tropical cyclone in the United States since 1886."

Added that info--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No NE impacts from H3?

I wasn't able to find anything beyond that sustained wind speed at Nantucket that I could definitively link to the storm. In addition to Newspapers.com and Climatological Data, I also tried checking Wayne Cotterly's thing about Maine hurricanes and he didn't even mention this one--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the infobox for H4

Oops. I sometimes use the infobox to check a wind speed to see what mph and km/h is when I input knots. Input --> show preview --> copy and paste the output --> put the original number back. But I guess I accidentally saved the page before putting the original number back --12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"marking the second time in a fortnight " - I'll only allow this if you do the entire article with the FFF system.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I notice, you don't discuss much about the basis for which the storm intensities were determined

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The damage toll ultimately ended up at $36,370." - "ultimately" seems a bit... I dunno. It stood out to me.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A tropical storm formed on October 2 about 150 mi (240 km) east of the Abaco Islands" - it seems odd to focus on this part of the Bahamas, since elsewhere in the article you just reference to the Bahamas as a whole

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related to this article, but I suggested merging 1916 Black Friday Storm with the [[1916 Pensacola hurricane]

I would support that idea but debating on a merger like that is a bit of the scope of this GAN--12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"about 100 mi (160 km) north-northwest of Barranquilla, Colombia, early on November 11" - is the city that important?

In Colombia? Yes. It has like 2.2 million people. For this article? No :P --12george1 (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, look out for duplicate links.

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, it's a pretty good article, just not quite a "good article". It shouldn't take much work though, nothing was that serious in my review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]