Talk:1916 Texas hurricane

Todo

Not a bad start. You should expand the impact section, especially for Texas. Storm surge damage is mentioned in the picture, but there's nothing about in the article. UTC shouldn't be used, just say the day. Transitional phrases would be nice, rather than going from sentence to sentence. (On August 21, the storm formed. On August 22, etc.) should be avoided. The formatting, with the exception of a see also section with a link to the TC portal, is great, but the content isn't so good.

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://www.srh.noaa.gov/crp/docs/research/hurrhistory/1916/1916.html
  • In 1916 Texas hurricane on 2011-05-25 02:44:46, 404 Not Found
  • In 1916 Texas hurricane on 2011-06-02 02:47:20, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wyatt2049 (talk · contribs) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The grammar and spelling for the article is very good. The punctuation is also great.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead section complies with the manual of style. The first sentence is also the article it self in a nutshell. The layout of the article itself is in a good order for an article, and I can't see this being an issue. There are no words to watch for. There is no fiction. The embedded lists in the article are neat and well organised.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The article is good and verifiable with multiple references for each fact. There is no "Citation needed" Templates anywhere. The article is, again, reliable and verifiable.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Same as the above comments. The article is verifiable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article contains no original research. All of the sources are of newspaper, or reliable hurricane archive sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There are none of these issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article does not go into too much detail about any off topic areas for the hurricane.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There is not any unnecessary detail. It was easy to read.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	This was not an issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Most of the images are from NOAA and are in the public domain. All images are properly sourced.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are to the topic about the hurricane and its damage.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a good article. I will let the article pass.

REVIEW

I have promoted this to good article status for the reasons in the template. I feel that it has met the criteria. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

In the course of making some minor edits to improve flow and diction, I'm encountering a few places where I feel clarification from the main authors would be beneficial.

• Crossing the Lesser Antilles from August 12–13,[4] the developing tropical cyclone produced gusty winds, peaking at 25 mph (35 km/h) on Antigua and reaching minimal tropical storm intensity offshore. - Does the 25 mph measurement represent a gust or a sustained wind? "Gusty winds" implies the former, so I want to be sure.
• One woman was killed by a downed electric wire. - Presumably electrocution was involved here... does the source say as much so we can be specific?
• Another train of cars was readied at Seabrook in case additional evacuations were required. - I'm having trouble verifying this in the given source (and the reason I was looking was because "train of cars" is a bit ambiguous, given that we've already discussed traincars and automobiles).
• All Western Union communication lines between San Antonio and Brownsville were severed by 2:00 p.m. CST (19:00 UTC) on August 18 - Also having difficulty verifying this time in provided sources.

More as I go along, perhaps. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Conservative estimates placed financial losses for the city between $250,000–$500,000 - Financial losses and storm damage are two different things. Is the former precise here?
• Not really sure what "proximate coast" means.
• What is a "pleasure pier"?
• Small shipping interests were hurt in Port Lavaca, particularly the fish and oyster industry; coastal homes in the port were destroyed. - Not sure I'd consider the fishing industry to qualify as shipping interests, though perhaps that could be argued with a little rewording. Coastal homes definitely not under that umbrella.
• Kingsville was nearly washed away by the hurricane - Seems a little hyperbolic in the absence of further context.
• Despite the storm's size and intensity, overall property losses along the coast were relatively light - This is a little jarring to come across after reading about how bad things were on the coast for three or four paragraphs.

– Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)