Talk:1881 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 05:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Comments to follow within a few days. Please consider reviewing another nomination at WP:GAN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in getting to this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• I think the "Season effects" section is an unnecessary duplication of the rest of the article—it doesn't really add anything, and should be removed.

• I usually like those tables because they can provide a easier way to account for the seasonal damage and death tolls. They're used in almost every season from the mid-20th century and beyond, but I can see how that's not necessarily useful here because there's only two damage totals and one death toll.--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• This source is used extensively, so it should be identified using the citation parameters where exactly the cited information is found, e.g. for the "Other storms" section.

• It's not as simple as just clicking that link. The PDF file does verify this sentence: "Chenoweth's study utilizes a more extensive collection ... in comparison to previous reanalysis projects." However, viewing other information requires pressing the "Supplemental Materials" tab, downloading that zip file, and opening "newcomp_database_JCLI-D-13-00771.xlsx" and "SupplementalTables_JCLI-D-13-00771.xlsx" (press the "Table S2" tab on Excel). I'm not sure how I could explain all of that on a citation. The "newcomp_database..." file lists time, coordinates, wind, pressure, etc. in six-hour increments that Chenoweth wants to be included in the official database (HURDAT), while column A lists a storm's number in HURDAT and column B lists the new number (sometimes it differs) under Chenoweth's proposals. "SupplementalTables..." and then pressing "Table S2" explains why Chenoweth proposed deleting a storm from HURDAT (e.g. "Chenoweth could not confirm the existence of this system as a tropical cyclone, noting "No storm in Texas press accounts" and that Dunn and Miller's 1960 reanalysis misdated a hurricane in 1880.").
  Alternatively, the proposed new storms and changes to ones Chenoweth retained can be viewed at IBTrACS. For example, here is Hurricane Five. "MLC" is Chenoweth and "USA" is HURDAT. However, IBTrACS does not show adjustments to the number of storms (unless maybe you look at each individual storm page and start counting) or the reason(s) for removing storm(s).--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• The consistent use of the present tense to describe the hurricane track (e.g. "the track for this cyclone begins") reads slightly oddly. Is this normal usage for the subject area?

• Done--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I like how the historiography is concisely summarized in "Season summary". Good job!
• The phrase "An undercount bias" in the first paragraph in the lead is somewhat difficult to understand; consider rephrasing.

• Done--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

• I assume you're using the official HURDAT analyses and not Chenoweth's proposals for the hurricane-by-hurricane maps? Might be worth clarifying that explicitly somewhere.
• The article could also use a copyedit, which I can do after you make the above changes.
• Source spotcheck passed, apart from that second point above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.