Talk:Great Lakes Storm of 1913

older entries

This is a spectacular article, interesting, detailed, well written. Great illustrations. Are they all legal? If so, I nominate for featured article status. alteripse 03:41, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The two maps (from a blank PD map) and flag graphic were created by me, the Detroit News front page, although large in size is low enough in detail and old enough that I think it should be fair use, and the Alpena postcard is owned by the photographer, who sent me a link to the photo through email. Its copyright status is unknown but the quality is so low that it should be fair use. Thanks for the compliments! --brian0918™ 03:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to mess up the table. I like the table and am not in favor of moving to sep article. I think it would be possible to shrink the size of the table and leave it where it is. I lost access to editing while I was trying to reduce font size and redistribute col width to match content, but I think I will let you do that. Too many cooks... alteripse 18:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also think the table should be kept, but the problems that browsers were having with pictures around the table make me think it should remain separate. I'm starting to like it as a separate article though, because now I have the space to add other information about the ships (length, breadth, year built, exact GPS location, etc). --brian0918™ 18:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Spendid, well-done article. Colorful, informative images and the btrilliant prose have made this a gem on Wikipedia. Plus, the contributors got the information from reliable offline resources and cited them very well. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Edmund Fitzgerald quote

The quotations section has a reference to the "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" (The Gordon Lightfoot song). I'm thinking that it doesn't belong here because the Edmund Fitzgerald went down in 1975, whereas this article is about the 1913 storm. Before I yank it, what do you think? Como 22:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However the quote is fairly general and makes sense here too. I would be happier if we just added a note that it referred to a later storm, but I won't object if people would prefer to delete it. -- Avenue 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no further comment over the past 2 weeks, let's do it. Bigturtle 23:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Como added the suggested note to the article two weeks ago. I still believe the quote makes sense here, as a general commentary on the dangers of the Great Lakes (especially in November). I feel the same way about the Melville quote, which preceded the 1913 storm by over 50 years, and which no one has objected to yet. -- Avenue 11:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been around until recently. Of course the Lightfoot quote is about the Edmund Fitzgerald--the title of the song makes that clear. And of course the Edmund Fitzgerald sank in 1975, that's already in the article. The point of the quote is to explain that the storm is worse when the November gale strikes while the waters are still warm, which is the case with this storm. It's a general quote, and has nothing to do with the Edmund Fitzgerald sinking, so why the complaints? I thought the quotation was perfect for the article; that's why I originally added it. It's the same reason I added the Melville quotation. There is no article on the November gale; all that information is in this article, so it makes perfect sense to list quotes about the fury of the November gale on the Great Lakes, in an article about the most dangerous November gale to ever hit the Great Lakes. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-02 14:33

Lightship No. 61 "Corsica Shoals"

This lightship was destroyed on Lake Huron. It isn't listed in the related list of vesseles, and it obviously should be. It's being offsite was a contributing factor in the loss of the Matthew Andrews. See also Huron Lightship. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Stan

John A. McGean discovery date and location

This wreck is listed as being proximate to Sturgeon Point Light. However, I found this on line, which indicates that it sank near Harbor Beach, Michigan. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

I've personally concluded that the McGean went down just east of Harbor Beach, Michigan. See what I wrote at Sturgeon Point Light, which contains references. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

Isaac M. Scottdiscovery date and location

Isaac M. Scott wreck is listed as being proximate to Sturgeon Point Light. However, the location of the wreck as described in the following article seems to contradict that. It states that mariners made certain assumptions about the likely direction of the vessel, and had wrongly guessed where it went down. It states: "In 1976, the wreck of the Scott was discovered at 175 feet about six to seven miles northeast of Thunder Bay Island. The vessel is upside down and half buried in the mud." 7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

I've personally concluded that the Scott went down 7 miles northeast of Thunder Bay Island. See what I wrote at Sturgeon Point Light, which contains references. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Stan

WP:URFA/2020

As part of the ongoing FA sweeps, I'm comparing this featured article to WP:FACR. The significant amount of uncited text does not seem to meet the inline citations part of FACR #1c. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• The images also could be improved, the maps are difficult to understand and could be redrawn in color, while overall there are too many images. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO there are not too many images. There are many facets to the coverage of the storm, and IMO the images are useful. North8000 (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

"current" values

Seems low and aren't current. And we don't know when that was either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You're right. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Removed "current value" per the sourced body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been doing some work related to the featured article review

I've been doing some work related to the featured article review comments. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Some conversation is located there.North8000 (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Weather coverage

This happened over 100 years ago. The weather forecasters of the time did not have enough data, communications and analysis capability or understanding of atmospheric dynamics to predict the storm, or even to understand it's current state. They also did not have the understanding or even terminology to to make what we now consider to be routine descriptions of the current and project state. For example, they did not even have the concept of "fronts". In modern times, re-analysis was done of the limited data obtained from back then, and a theorized description of the weather during the storm was developed. But even that is theorized, as essential information (such as from the upper atmosphere) is absent.

I will attempt to add some "overview storm description" increase that, but it will probably be a slower and more complex process and I think much context and attribution will be required for whatever is put in. I intend to slowly work on developing that but it will take a while.

Meanwhile, lack of sourcing for an "overview" statement of the weather has been noted and questioned at FAR. The questioned text seems to make statements that weren't definitively known. As such I was unable to source it and to resolve the FAR question I removed the content.

Of course, anyone wanting to tackle weather overview type coverage here should not let my intentions noted above deter them. I think that any attributed and sourced statements should be fine from a FA/FAR standpoint. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Is the article improperly US centric?

This was asked at the featured article review and now that I've read more of the sources (including the main 3 books) I've been reviewing this question. I wanted to answer it more thoroughly and thought that the article talk page would be a good place to do this due to the size of this and also for future reference.

I think that the Wikipedian answer is simple. The article pretty well follows and covers what is in the sources in this respect. But I think that a more thorough overview of this question would be good to do here. Most coverage focuses on where the "news" of the storm was. A second note is that any impression about balance of coverage between countries will tend to focus on areas where countries are discussed. So, for example coverage of the biggest news of the storm which what happened on ships will utilize specific cities and geographic areas rather than countries. For example, it will say "Fort William" and not "Fort William in Canada". It only in areas regarding national government and association-related items does the country name become more visible.

Most of the impacts of the storm were on ships. And shipping mishaps (sinkings and strandings) pretty much were on the shores. And about 3/4 of those were in the US and about 1/4 were in Canada. Mostly because most of the big trouble was on southern and eastern shores which, with the exception of the east shore of southern Lake Huron, were primarily in the US. I'll make sure that the coverage of individual ships includes country of origin, ports of call, and location of the trouble. But overall, I think that that article mostly just follows the stories here.

Regarding the location of the storm, the location matters / this is mostly defined by where was it rough. The storm was rough on the actual lakes (Lake Superior, Michigan, Huron and Erie) and on certain of their shores. Farther inland, even where it was present, it would be less of a big deal. The relative heat of the lakes fueled the storm. Also large open water areas allowed high winds and big waves to build. What might be just a windy day farther inland can create 40' waves on Lake Superior. Regarding the areas where the storm created "big trouble" on land, most of that was in the US. The lion's share of this was in Cleveland, and secondarily on other areas on the south (US) shore of Lake Erie. There is also some coverage of specific incidents in Duluth/Superior and Chicago. These were all in the US.

Both countries were a lot smaller back then. Canada had a population of about 8,000,000 people, Toronto had about 210,000 people and the US about 97,000,000 people. The US Weather Bureau was small, young, an arm of the US Department of Agriculture and was focused on farming. Most sources did not mention the Canadian weather services and one other source made some comparitively brief mentions.

Also, preparations in the two countries were asked about. Nobody knew anything unusual (beyond the usual bad weather for that time of the year) was coming and so there were no particular preparations in either country. Further, ship captains were used to mostly ignoring the usual warnings for the usual bad weather at that time of the year, and that was the only type of warnings that they received.

So, in summary, I think that the article follows the sources which, in turn, mostly followed the worst calamities of the storm. About 100% of those "worst calamities" on land were in the US, and about 75% of those "worst calamities" on shipping were in the US. I think that the article would benefit from, evolving a bit away from the most-heavily-covered "worst calamities" and for the ships expanded coverage on elements (routes, ports of call etc.) in addition to what happened at the point of their final demise. I think that these expansions (which I plan to do longer term) would tend to increase Canadian coverage. Also, I think that expansion of the article into some areas less-focused-on by the sources would tend to increase Canadian coverage. But IMO the article does not currently have a wiki-problem regarding that overall question. North8000 (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Brainstorming structure to get to the next level

The article has evolved and developed quite a bit and retained it's FA status. IMO challenges between here and the next level arise from the scope and complexity of this event. It's actually about dozens of epic events & stories. One thing that is not really covered is the storm itself, meaning the weather an waves. Of course there is material on it in dozens of places. One of the challenge is at the time they had no understanding of the storm, little overview understanding to be able to describe it. And coverage based on stories and reports from the time does not explain or really describe the storm. Decades later weather scientists did figure it out with a high degree of confidence. The article need expansion in this area.

While the best holistic structure might be chronological, integrating all aspects, available sourcing does not do that. For example, at most, sources tie shipwreck stories to weather observation at the time but few or none to any technical overview of the storm which was not known until decades later.

The worst of this storm was that it was a disaster for ships. But there are no stories about the worst of it. Basically about 20 ships sank without running aground, and everybody on every one of them died, so there is no story about how it happened to any of them. But there are many stories about ships that got wrecked when running aground. The current organization is somewhat of a blend. Also most of the things describes as aftermath were things that happened during the storm. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)