Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Lakes Storm of 1913

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

edit

I started this article a week ago and have been working on it quite a bit. It was on the main page in the "Did you know" section as well. A couple people have told me that it should be featured, and this page gets more traffic than Peer Review. So here goes... --brian0918&#153; 23:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Support:

  1. Pmeisel 23:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. 68.81.231.127 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. Carnildo 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  4. Jeronimo 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. mav 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  6. Taxman 16:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Object:


Comments:

  • supportPmeisel 23:24, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Most of the images still aren't correctly tagged. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags, specifically the entries on {{PD-US}}, {{PD-USGov-Interior-USGS}}, and {{PD-flag}}. It's also worth adding a short explaination of why the tag is justified on the image description page, especially in the complicated cases (where you made alterations to map made by someone else, or where that flag came from). 68.81.231.127 00:16, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I've fixed the image tags. The flag was created by me. If there's still a problem, let me know specifically what's wrong. --brian0918&#153; 01:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Looks good. I also did a copyedit, standardizing units, smoothing a little wording here and there, and so forth. There might still be too many pics in the foundering section... it might be worth keeping the best and spinning out a separate image gallery. 68.81.231.127 19:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the help!! I was also thinking of doing an image gallery, as I generally like images in articles (especially historical ones). Should it just be a link in the "See also" section to a gallery on wikimedia commons? --brian0918&#153; 19:30, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I 'm not sure, though using the Commons is always a great idea. And it looks like a couple of minor questions I added later got deleted: What was the duration of the economic impact mentioned in the first paragraph? (a cite would be good, since it's an unsupported generalization) What's an arctic outbreak? Is there a difference between a carrier and a bulk carrier? The weather bureau... are all references to the USDA weather bureau? During the prelude, is the reference to the US weather bureau and coast guard, or both countries? 68.81.231.127 20:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • I've added a gallery and will be adding several more pics. As for your questions: not sure of the economic duration, I'll read up on it; I think "arctic outbreak" is just a generic term for a cold front moving into a region, such as what occurs as the season changes to winter; all occurrences of "carrier" have been changed to "bulk carrier", as "carrier" also refers to the shipowner; all USDA weather bureaus are weather bureaus, but not all weather bureaus are USDA weather bureaus -- in this case, however, all references are to USDA weather bureaus :) ; I don't understand your question about the prelude. --brian0918&#153; 21:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
              • The CG ref is under Nov 7 (not the prelude :)... is it USCG or CCG, or both? (Very minor.) 68.81.231.127 18:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
                • In the text that I read this from, it just says "Coast Guard stations and weather bureau offices in ports along Lake Superior...", so I'm assuming it's both. --brian0918&#153; 18:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object for now. The images at the end of the "On the lakes" section overlap and interfere with the drawing of the table in Mozilla 1.7.2, and my attempts at fixing it apparently broke it in Internet Explorer. See Image:GreatLakesLayoutProblem.jpg for what it looks like to me. --Carnildo 00:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • It looks fine on Mozilla 1.7.5: screenshot. Maybe you need to clear your cache? --brian0918&#153; 01:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I've tested it in as many browsers as I can get my hands on. All tests are at 1024x768
      1. Opera 7.5 for Linux, "Classic" skin: The five images are in two rows above the table: 3 on the top line, 2 on the bottom line.
      2. Opera 7.5 for Linux, "Monobook" skin: The five images are in a column beside the table.
      3. Mozilla 1.7.2 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
      4. Mozilla 1.7.2 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
      5. Mozilla 1.7.5 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
      6. Mozilla 1.7.5 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
      7. Internet Explorer 6, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
      8. Opera 7.0 for Windows, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row above the table; the fifth is to the right of the table.
      9. Firefox 1.0 for Linux, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
      10. Firefox 1.0 for Linux, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
      11. Konquerer 3.3, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
      12. Konquerer 3.3, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
      13. Internet Explorer 5.2 for Mac, "Monobook" The five images are in a column beside the table.
      14. Internet Explorer 5.2, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row above the table; the fifth is to the right of the table.
      15. Safari 1.2, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside the table.
      16. Safari 1.2, "Classic": Four of the images are in a row overlapping the top of the table, the fifth is beside the table. See screenshot.
    • At 800x600
      1. Internet Explorer 5, "Monobook": The five images are in a column above the table.
      2. Internet Explorer 5, "Classic": The five images are in two rows above the table, 3 in the top row, 2 in the bottom. There is whitespace as large as one of the rows between the preceding paragraph and the images.
      3. Opera 6 for Windows, "Monobook": The five images are in a column beside and overlapping the table.
      4. Opera 6 for Windows, "Classic": The five images are in a row above and overlapping the table, and are displayed in reverse order.
      5. Netscape 4.5, "Monobook": The five images are displayed in a left-aligned column above the table, with the images overlapping their captions. The layout is completely borked.
      6. Netscape 4.5, "Classic": Unknown. I couldn't find the "login" link.
    • At 82x26
      1. Lynx, "Monobook": The five images are displayed as linked "alt" text in a column above the table. The table is shown as a list
      2. Links, "Monobook: The five images are displayed as linked "alt" text in a column above the table. The table is shown as a table.
    • The problem browsers so far are Mozilla, Firefox, Konquerer, and Safari with the "Classic" skin. Any other browsers I should test in?
    • Carnildo 07:20, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the help, but does this problem really need to be fixed for all browsers? No page is going to look right on every browser, and definitely not on outdated versions of the browser. If I was going to arrange it another way, I would probably try and put them in a couple rows above the table, with a br above them and a br below them. If that didn't work, well then the minority browsers would just have to be ignored, as I doubt they display much of wikipedia correctly. There's nothing wrong with my code on wikipedia; it's just a problem with how those browsers interpret the code. --brian0918&#153; 15:36, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The concern comes from the specific browsers that have trouble: the most common browser on Mac, the most common browser on Linux, and the second most common browser in Windows.
      • I've removed the table, replacing it with a short list, and have rearranged the pictures. This problem should be fixed now. --brian0918&#153; 17:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The current version looks good in Monobook and ok in Classic. --Carnildo 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • support. Write some more for us. alteripse 04:51, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Looks good, needs some minor adjustments. 1) Could you tell the non-US reader in the lead section where the Great Lakes basin is? 2) I'm not sure we need this many external links; several seem to be redundant. 3) A large portion is taken by the table of shipwrecks, which, frankly is not all that interesting to the article. I think a condensed version of the table (maybe only giving total figures) would be good enough for the article, moving the full table to a separate article. Jeronimo 11:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • 1) Replaced "Great Lakes basin region" with "Great Lakes basin region of mid-eastern North America". 2) I've removed some of the links, but I think the ones currently listed are all important. 3) I think the shipwrecks are more important than you claim, as that is where the lives were lost. Most texts on the storm focus almost exclusively on the shipwrecks. But, I understand the problem and I'll replace the table with a list of ships and lives lost, and move the table to its own article with a link to it in "See also". Sound alright? --brian0918&#153; 16:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've moved the table to its own article, replaced it with a much shorter list, and rearranged the pictures. --brian0918&#153; 17:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Lookin' good. Support. Jeronimo 22:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good work. Could you write some more storm articles please? :) --mav 19:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks good, and I don't see anything else wrong with it. Question: This article looks very well written and referenced, and is quite interesting, so I would like to support. My great grandparents lived in Calumet, MI at the time and most likely were affected at a minimum by the weather. However, after reading the article I couldn't help but wonder why we have this article, and why this storm (which the article says sunk 19 ships) is more important than the 1905 storm that destroyed 111. If it destroyed that many ships is it possible that less people were killed in it than the 1913 storm? If so, can you offer some citation for this storm being the "deadliest natural disaster to ever hit the lakes"? Anything from one of your sources would be good. Is this storm more prominent just because of more snow and covering a larger geographic area than the 1905 storm? Thanks - Taxman 16:30, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • The 1905 storm only killed about 70. Ships don't have to be manned to be sitting at port waiting to be destroyed, and people could have stranded the majority. Every reference I've read (books, newspapers, official forecasters) considers the 1913 storm to be the worst (deadliest, most damaging)to hit the region, as well as the worst maritime disaster to hit the continent (using the traditional definition of "maritime" as dealing with marine shipping). --brian0918&#153; 17:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Ok, sounds good, you've done your research. Though it would be ideal to cite something as central as that directly to the most reliable sources on it. You can put a superscript note next to the fact and then list the specific reference that backs up the fact. Not a requirement, but would really help with the reliability and trustworthyness of the article. - Taxman 15:41, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • The full title of White Hurricane is: White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. --brian0918&#153; 15:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • Ah, yes well thats pretty clear. I added a direct citation to that book for that fact. You can do more along those lines if you like. - 22:29, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, 19 ships were destroyed, but only 12 of those were sunk. --brian0918&#153; 17:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm not so sure about the 111 number anymore. It came from the "storm breeding ground" reference, but if you read this newspaper article, it makes it sound like there were much fewer deaths and ships destroyed. --brian0918&#153; 18:03, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913&oldid=1136097548"