# Talk:1914 Atlantic hurricane season

This page looks better than before.Any questions?
70.----.122 is my school IP-i just change it into the username. 
Changes:
1) Storm has own section
2) ACE box created
3) Storm has own infobox
4) Storm has more information (I watched my grammar)
5) Page has button bar-I will move button bar to template when i get home.
HurricaneCraze32

Nice work! I made some fixes. Oddly, this has the max winds of this TS at 60 knots, which would be 69 mph. Which is correct? -- RattleMan 18:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I found a site that said 50 mph.Shall we change the class from stub?HurricaneCraze32 18:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I changed it from Stub to Start for now, but I'm not sure what else we can add to it now... -- RattleMan 18:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm just getting the button bar moved.I still cant figure out how to make the template-i do it by luck.A little help please.i've done it 4 times-and i keep forgetting how i do it.HurricaneCraze32 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Never mind.Finished it.Thanks for the help. Lets stick with 50 mph-i found more proof with it.HurricaneCraze32 18:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Hurdat, the storm peaked at 70 mph. In addition, the site says there were two other storms being investigated for inclusion in the database, but lack of tropical characteristics kept them removed. A way to expand the article would be to mention those two, if needed. Hurricanehink 19:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Fellas...the one, only, everlasting, official, single source for 1851-2005 Atlantic storms is the NHC best-track data.  The main page to look at is http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data_Storm.html - this has links to the pages quoted by both Rattleman (though I think that page shows *landfalling* winds not peak winds, despite that they call it "max winds") and Hink.  The link hink gives is good reading, but just looking at the easy-to-read data (listed in the link above) at http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyhurdat_5104.html#1914_1 will show you that the storm had 70 mph winds. — jdorje (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I really dont wanna set one until we decide on 1 wind speed. I added:"There is many arguments over what the actual wind speed of this storm and is still undecided." to the storm history.HurricaneCraze32 20:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not undecided. The official Hurdat gives 70 mph, so that's what's going in. I changed it. Hurricanehink 21:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Be sure to add in the possible storms, mentioned by Hurdat. Also, try and use the raw data to provide more data for the lone storm. The raw data includes rainfall totals and wind speeds. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I put this as mid-importance, seeing as it was the least active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well-written: Fair, some areas could do with a copyedit.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Source for no impact/deaths?
Broad in coverage: More info on TS One? Formation isn't clear, all the article says is that it formed east of FL. So? Plenty of storms from east of FL. Tropical Storm Tammy (2005) is a good example. Could be better re. impact - we're talking about 1914. I'm sure there's bound to be some impact information you can find.
NPOV: Pass
Stable: The edits to this article (see history) seem to come in bunches now and again, making quite significant additions. I'm not so sure on this point.
Images: Pass
There definitely should be more information out there you can find on TS-1. Especially if it was the only storm this season all documentations of the 1914 season should give ample information on it. Personally as a WPTC member I think this is far from GA class; it isn't even a B-class article. It needs quite a bit of work. – Chacor 02:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Found on the Monthly Weather Review about winds and rain, but nothing on deaths.Mitchazenia(to be 9100+edits) 22:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it at least B-Class now?Mitchazenia(to be 9100+edits) 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Correct the infobox. How do you know it was $0 in damage?
Add the other storms that Hurdat mentioned as possible storms in the storms section
Redo and organize the lede. Did the season officially start on June 1 and end on November 30 back then? Source needed for the season being one of only two seasons without a hurricane. Source is also needed for, "However, it is possible that there could have been other short lived storms in the Atlantic."
Rewrite the storm history section of TS 1. What is HWM and COADS, and why is it important to the article? Unexplained acronyms are very bad. Is there any actual storm history for the storm? Where did it come from? Why did it move on its path? A storm that struck Georgia and later removed into the Gulf of Mexico is unusual. How did it happen?
The second paragraph of TS 1 should be rewritten as well. It should go in order of area. It is written that it produced rainfalls across the Atlantic and Gulf Coast states. That sentence means that the storm dropped precipitation from Maine to Texas. Is that correct? You only provide two locations for rainfall totals, and both are in Florida. Did you mean it only produced rainfall on the one state that borders the Atlantic and Gulf Coast? How can one "find rainfalls". First, rainfall is generally a singular noun, and second, you don't normally find it. You record it, report it, some other verb that makes more sense. Saying the Miami Herald reported... is confusing. When I read that, I expect to see impact in Miami, not Saint Augustine. Does who report it make a difference for something as small as the minor impact there? "Tons of dead grasses and marshes were blown away around the city." Do you mean actual tons, as in several thousand pounds of dead grass (grass is generally a singular noun, as well)? That seems pretty unusual, as grass and marsh don't weigh that much. A ton would be a lot of grass and marsh to be blown around. Is there any more info on that event? "No damage was reported in the area due to prior warnings." Whoa, that's weird. You never mentioned prior warnings, and what about the tons of grass and marsh? Surely that would count as damage, especially if one ton of that fell on someone. Additionally, prior warning doesn't usually affect the damage; it affects the deaths.
In the third paragraph- "The storm caused minimal damage, and there were no reported fatalities." How is that possible? In the infobox, it says 0 damage and unknown fatalities. Something's not right.
Overall, it needs a fresh rewrite, more info, and better grammar and word choice. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I say put rewrite on hold because you suggestions are problematic.
We cant put those storms in the article because the NHC has not verify them yet.
As far as i can know, the NHC considers that the AHS starts June 1 and ends Nov 30 regardless of time period.
Hink you stated. Is there any actual storm history for the storm? Where did it come from? Why did it move on its path? A storm that struck Georgia and later removed into the Gulf of Mexico is unusual. How did it happen? 
This is not a modern storm, the only actual storm history is the one written in the MWR and searching on the internet for  more SH is useless b/c it problaby wasnt detected untill it was off the coast of georgia. (remember there TC obervation back then was limited to ship reports). The Why did it move on its path and how did it happen is compeletly unncesary unless its specificly mentions in the MWR (which is possbily the Only source) that has any info about the storm. 

There nothing wrong in the info box. unknown fatalies is the same as no reported fatalies and 0 damage means that there was no damage to structures or roads, etc (altough that can be subst with minimal.
thats all i have to say for now. Storm05 13:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not! Minimal damage ≠ no damage. You're missing Hink's point. A cite is needed for the fact that "it is possible that there could have been other short lived storms in the Atlantic." He's not asking for citations of said storms as you seem to think. Secondly, your claim about "regardless of time period" is incorrect, the AHS might not have been defined by dates back in 1914, or indeed there may not have been a formal "hurricane season" at all. – Chacor 14:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
incorrect!- the Atlantic hurricane season as defined by the National Hurricane Center runs from June 1 to Novmember 30 regardeless of the period. Storm05 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The NHC did not exist in 1914. Their definition may not be applicable to before the time they did not exist. Please provide a RELIABLE SOURCE for your assertion. – Chacor 14:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
IT DOESNT MATTTER if the NHC doesnt exist!, their criteria of the AHS statrting on June 1 and ending on Nov 30. applies to ALL seasons, even the ones before the NHC even existed!. Storm05 15:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIV. And how can their criteria apply to a period when they had no control? WP:NOR, this would constitute original research by claiming so. Find a source. – Chacor 15:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
To go off topic a minute- Hink, i got #1 done. I can't do #2 until this argument subsides. HWM is Historical Weather Maps. COADS i do not know of. Rainfalls in other states- i do not know of. Only Florida had impact.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 14:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
No, we don't need a whole section for extratropical storms that weren't part of the season. Just mention in the lede about the storms that HURDAT mention are being looked at for inclusion. – Chacor 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1 as in Todo Task 1, but oh well. I have added the storms to the intro.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 18:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the "possible storms" should be removed. The link provided mentions that they were extratropical systems (with the second system "perhaps" but not "definitely" being a TD). Extratropical cyclones and tropical disturbances that aren't declared tropical depressions or higher are not part of the hurricane season, whether they're mentioned in the report or not, and don't belong in the article. --Coredesat 23:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the original point made by Hink here is that being 1914, there could've been storms missed, and that needs a citation, not about storms that happened and are known that were not included in HURDAT, which is what Mitchazenia has re-written the statement to read. – Chacor 00:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If you want me to remove them- I'll be very happy to remove them.Mitchazenia(9200+edits) 00:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't that be listed at 2007 in the refs, not 1914?  HURDAT didn't predate the 1960's.  Also, COADS or ICOADS for the ship database?  One should be chosen for the red wikilinks, because only one article will be created for the project, ultimately.  Thegreatdr (talk) 14:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the years. Storm05 (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Storm o5, renominate for GA then. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home ,Sandbox  Happy Veterans day 17:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to rehash the old argument about "June through November" for a season which predates an official dedicated agency monitoring the basin.  Late spring to mid-autumn should suffice.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1914 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Canadian Paul 05:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 05:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
...and here it is! 

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not introduce facts in the introduction that are not present in the body of the article. In the lead it is written that "hurricane season normally runs from late spring until mid-autumn [...]", but this is not in the body of the article and it is something that people, especially not experts, may disagree with. From the article history/talk page, it looks like it was already a contentious issue. Perhaps this could be quickly cited within the body if the assertion is to be made in the lead? The lead itself is a bit stilted... the latter half, at least, is just "fact after fact" without much flow but, given the nature of the article, that may be a bit unavoidable.
That's really it - there were some smaller issues that needed fixing with the prose, but I've tidied those up. To allow you to address this concern, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days. I'm always open to discussion, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up in real life, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 05:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Paul, thanks for the review. I don't think the normal bounds of hurricane season constitute a fact, but rather an uncontroversial and rather trivial linguistic filler – something to make the subsequent information easier to process. I'm not sure why anyone would disagree with the fact that the Atlantic hurricane season runs from summer through part of autumn. The contentiousness comes from the fact that the article long stated the official season ran from June 1 to November 30, which may or may not be true; those are the dates applied to modern hurricane seasons, but there's no indication that definition existed during 1914. Hence the ambiguous "summer through mid-autumn", which is the most active period of tropical cyclones in the Atlantic by all means. Juliancolton (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe that is a bit more of my concern here, that is just "linguistic filler". Perhaps it would be more interesting to note that it was the latest start to a hurricane season in the lead... this is something that IS mentioned and cited in the body, as well as being a bit more akin to the purposes of a lead (as a hook to draw people in, a summary of the article etc. etc.). I know, a lot of discussion for just one small point, but I feel that GA is a process where the one reviewer is going to miss a lot, so he might as well be nitpicky, haha. Canadian Paul 05:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
True enough. Take another look when you get a chance. Juliancolton (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I like I like. It's nice. In fact, it's good - therefore, I guess it's time to pass it as a Good Article! Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Juliancolton (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)