User talk:CapeVerdeWave

Hey there CVW. I suggest you merge the Effects of the 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane in Florida, rather than going for FAC. It seems like a bit of a content fork from the main article, so you might run into some issues. The main article has a fair amount of Florida info, around 1,000 words for the impact, while the sub-article has about 2,000 words for the impact. That still leaves room for expansion for aftermath and the gulf coast. Unless articles are over 8,000 words, there's probably not a need for a sub-article. Compare that with the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, which is over 8,000 words, so the Florida sub-article for that storm makes a lot more sense. I hope this isn't too discouraging. I know you want to have a featured article! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I won't know until it's done, but a lot of my feedback is going to depend on how the state subarticle looks, and how much of that info is in the main article. It's tough to say at this point. It's easier for a storm like the 1932 Abaco hurricane to have a concise narrative that's easy to sell at FAC, and be sure the article is thorough and done. When it's an article for a specific area, IDK, you run the risk of being too detailed for certain locations, or end up with a list of statistics for every single area affected. It's your call though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the 1932 Abaco hurricane is a great choice! Before FAC, double check that the image rights are all correct, and that all citations are good. Because this would be your first FAC, would you like to have a co-nominator? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

In the instance you mentioned, I would avoid "furniture" and "lots", so you don't use the same noun, just to be on the safe side. Double check for other instances. Also, make sure your units are consistent. I saw "75-mile-per-hour (121 km/h)", but most of the article abbreviates mph. These are small things that will pop up on FAC. 12george1 recently had an FAC, so it could be worth asking him. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I use newspaperarchive.com through the Wikipedia library. Have you tried that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I definitely wouldn't advise a split for the 1935 Yankee hurricane, as almost of the impacts were in Florida. And as for 1947, there's still the major problem that the main article is only 3700 words, so I still think the potential Florida sub-article would work better in the main article. The only areas that aren't affected by the potential Florida sub-article are the Bahamas and the rest of the Gulf Coast. Even if the entire Florida sandbox is merged, there isn't enough content outside of Florida to push the main article past size limit rules. So in essence, the Florida sub-article would be a content fork. I even checked what the main article would look like, and it's only 7,200 words with the sandbox merged in. That's a much better article size than the 3,700 words it currently has. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I've never had an issue with plagiarism, so I never had to worry about a detector. That's why I always point out (in reviewing) basic stuff like avoiding quotes from sources as a way of describing something. But I don't know how useful a plagiarism detector will be if you didn't copy any sentences word for word. I checked out the Wikipedia policy page for Plagiarism and it recommended Earwig's copyvio detector. I ran it for the 1932 Abaco hurricane, and it mostly picked up basic phrases like "Category 5 hurricane" and "Atlantic hurricane best track". So unless you've copied sentences verbatim, I don't think they'll be too helpful. When in doubt, look at the writing style. Newspaper sources (if copied from) tend to be more dramatic to catch your attention. Government reports tend to be droll and procedurial and full of background info that may or not be relevant. Wikipedia articles need to be somewhere in between: informative enough to cover what readers want to know, but not so full of fluff that it bores the reader. If the writing sounds like it's from a textbook (even if it wasn't copied), then you should find a way of rewriting it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

The Yankee hurricane is only around 4,200 words, so it's not too long yet. It's actually pretty comparable to the 1944 Cuba-Florida hurricane article. I'd recommend cutting a few things though:

• "On Lake Okeechobee no damage resulted." - you never need to say when things don't happen, like no damage or no deaths in a certain place.

• There isn't much information hierarchy. Like, I get the first impact paragraph is Bahamas, but the rest of it is a wall of Florida text. I usually start off my impact sections with met details, like wind reports and rainfall, so it isn't scattered around. It's also good having a summary paragraph, and that seems like the first Florida paragraph is that. And then the second one is about waves, but then tidal information is spread out across a few paragraphs.
• You mention downed trees a lot. If it's just a mention of the trees without them doing anything, then a lot of the mentions could be summarized into "The hurricane's winds were strong enough to knock down trees," or something.

• Generally avoid using quotes from sources as a way of describing damage. The Miami Herald quote is probably fine as an illustration of the storm's effects, but other ones aren't needed, and can generally be rewritten to be even shorter. For example:

• " "into a billiard-table smoothness"
• "extremely high"
• "piled up in twisted heaps".
• "telegraph companies relayed"
• "extensive"
• "great many roofs"

The article is decent, there's just a lot of fluff in it. And I think you might be realizing that. When you get to a certain point in an article, you have to streamline and condense information for narrative flow. Otherwise it's a wall of text that feels like a list of individual accounts, rather than an overarching narrative. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Forgive me, you're right, there isn't the most consistency across featured articles when it comes to info organization. I supposed the main difference with 1944 is that the Florida section is more geographically defined. The Yankee hurricane had almost all of its impacts near Miami (other than Bahamas), so the trick is how to organize everything without being repetitive. There are indeed a few places where mentioning the downed trees was useful, such as it blocking traffic on an important route. Also good: "In the county the storm downed three-fourths of the mature avocado trees, along with 80% of the citrus trees." That is an actual stat, plus it includes the agriculture damage. But then you also have that the strong wind gusts knocked down trees in the Miami area ("toppling trees"), and at Paolita Station, and that "and many trees were prostrated", and that "winds splintered coconut trees". Here's another example where it feels fluffy and redundant: "Strong winds felled royal palms "by the score", their trunks resting on roofs and roads, as the local press remarked. Many palms at Bayfront Park lay prostrate" If you include palms as trees in general, that's an extension of the downed trees that is mentioned a few times. And as for tides, you mention the high tides in northern Florida in its own paragraph, and then again later in two more paragraphs. I think it makes sense mentioning the Miami and Fort Lauderdale tides with the tide paragraph. You also mention a few times when the storm did no or minimal damage. I don't think those are needed, unless you can give examples of the minimal damage.

And one last thing. If you have one paragraph for all of the meteorology details, then you don't need to have short stuff like "Air pressures down to 29.67 inHg (1,005 mb) and 40-mile-per-hour (64 km/h) gales", which are pretty uninteresting details compared to the 130 mph wind gusts. And then having the 130 mph mentioned prominently makes "estimated gusts over 120 mph (190 km/h)" less important and unnecessary. Since you have the 130 mph gust in the infobox, that should be highlighted more than it currently is - where it was recorded and when.

I hope all of this helps! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

You're right that a few of the instances in the 1944 storm article might be excessive, now that I'm looking at it again. The mentions of the downed trees without any context isn't all that useful. For example, "downed trees were characteristic of the damage in Clearwater". Had I looked at the article as much as you've had me look at your Yankee draft, I probably would've picked up on that in my FA review. I suppose one of the main differences is that the 1944 Cuba-Florida hurricane had such widespread impacts that it didn't feel as redundant seeing the minor examples of damage so often. For the Yankee hurricane, almost all of the damage occurred in one area. It seems counterintuitive, but it's harder to notice the smaller things in bigger storms, while it's easier to notice them and nitpick in a shorter article. That also means that there is less to refine, if you are worried about the quality of the prose. For a big storm, any one sentence isn't that important, so it doesn't matter as much for all of the prose to be beautiful. But then for big storms, you need to keep the impacts varied so you don't say "X place was flooded, Y place was flooded", or list the same type of impacts for multiple places. It's a lot to consider, but I hope it doesn't dissuade you from trying! And it's not like what you wrote was "impermissible", it was just something that stood out to me since I've read it so many times. For what it's worth, FAC reviewers usually care more about reliable sources, image sources, alt text, and the lack of plagiarism over all of the text being beautiful. That being said, it does help keep eyes on the article when the prose is beautiful :) A good first test is submitting for GA review to get a fresh set of eyes... which doesn't include me, my eyes are old and tired and overly pedantic at times :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah yea I get that problem. It's not ideal, but that's when passive voice is useful. "Cabanas were overturned". But even then, consider how important the information is. If a cabana was overturned and someone was injured, that's interesting. But a cabana might just be a tent, and that reminds me of the meme of people posting a storm damage pic by showing a chair knocked over. Sometimes newspapers include information just to fill out an article, and just because something was reported doesn't mean it needs to be in the article. I understand more now how you're organizing the article, based on types of impacts, so it should help with organization if you continue that trend, like mentioning all of the tidal effects in the same paragraph. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

The most important thing for context is to capture the reader's attention. I hate to put it that simply, but if you are writing in 100 words what could be written in 20, then you're losing your audience's attention. Or if you use words/sentence structures that are needlessly complex, you risk losing your audience who might not have the highest reading level. You could write certain topics to be understandable for a college-level expert, but then you risk using too much jargon. But more specifically for this part:

What details, statistics, etc. are worth mentioning, besides meteorology?

It's the ones that affect humans the most. People usually don't care about long-lasting tropical cyclones that are weak and do nothing. If a storm has an article because of its impacts, they want to know how much was damaged. Houses, schools, boats, roads, bridges, infrastructure. If you start off with that kind of stuff, you hook your audience in with specifics. Later on, you can give further examples. You mentioned,

Maybe the sheer volume of information and the need to organize it all overwhelms me at times.'

Yup. That mentality affects a lot of people. It's easier and safer to write about a fish storm that barely affected anyone, but few people are going to read about it. Working on more important storms means reading about some pretty harrowing stuff. The good side is that we're on the other side of the history book, reading about decades old accounts. It's important not to romanticize the past when reading old sources. People were dramatic writers back in 1935, just like people are dramatic in their tweets nowadays. The key is sorting through all of the noise and finding the nuggets of juicy stuff.

Also, I wouldn't suggest giving up and starting over. Just to refine what you have. You probably aren't going to get much more out of the sources, unless you notice an inconsistency as you're writing/rewriting. I suggest cutting down on some of condensing and streamlining the more minor parts of the storm's impacts. That'll help give the whole thing some clarity. And you might find that the prose, once condensed a bit, is as beautiful as the 1944 hurricane ;) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Well if you're just comparing cyclogeneses, of course the writing is going to feel different! You're trying to describe a unique meteorological event (Yankee hurricane of subtropical origin) with a pretty typical western Caribbean October storm. I would take more time to work on the origins of the Yankee hurricane. You should include the genesis part, currently under miscellany, under the met history, and feel free to go into detail to avoid the wording being too complex. What you currently have under miscellany:

The genesis of the storm was linked to a trough that formed on October 27–28 between the Faroe Islands, an archipelago in the North Sea, and the Lesser Antilles.

This works really well as an opening MH sentence! One small note, I would start the location reference with Lesser Antilles, since the storm formed closer to the Caribbean than to the UK, but perhaps not, since the MH also mentions the polar air mass. So this could work fine as is. The next sentence:

Associated with a polar air mass, the trough interacted with the Icelandic Low and the Bermuda High, producing convergent easterly trade winds over a long fetch

This all works until "convergent easterly trade winds", which kind of loses me. The link to "convergence zone" helps, so if you simplified this to mention what a convergence zone is, then when you mention convection, it has a follow-up later on when you say "The unstable atmosphere produced convection", which is in the MH first paragraph. Then the part about explaining why it was more of a subtropical cyclone has plenty of context, which leads you to the current MH. That all works well, and is honestly an interesting way of starting what can usually be a pretty boring part of the article. So many storms have the same basic track, so given that this storm is pretty unusual, you are taking advantage of it.

Getting to the opening part of the MH that you had issues with:

The storm formed out of a low-pressure area along a frontal axis over the Sargasso Sea.

So based on the "miscellany" part, it was a trough, which is a kind of frontal axis, but if you move the miscellany part to the beginning of the MH, then you can say that the low-pressure formed (on a specific date). Also, the 1944 article you mentioned refers to the "western Caribbean", which is a well-known body of water, but I don't think the average person knows where the Sargasso Sea is. I would suggest mentioning the direction/distance from Bermuda, as that island is much better known. If distance isn't exactly known (but due to latitude/longitude), you're allowed to (per routine calculation rules) use a distance calculator to figure out distance from a location, like "X miles north of Bermuda".

The disturbance moved over warm ocean waters

Best to add what direction it moved.

Modulated by the Icelandic Low, the ridge–trough interplay drew a polar air mass southward over the warm water

Too complicated, from the "modulated", to the "ridge-trough interplay", to "drew a polar air mass southward". But perhaps by adding the miscellany part earlier, it'll be easier to simplify this sentence.

...allowing a well-defined circulation to emerge on October 29, followed by a concentrated wind field a day later. At 06:00 UTC that day, a tropical storm first appeared

I did several double-takes, thinking that this implied that the storm formed on the 29th at 06:00, and that the concentrated wind field was on the 30th. So this could be clearer.

As for....

Can you give some advice?

Treat the storm like it's a character in a story. Who/What/When/Where/Why/How, the standard questions for any story. Unlike a news story, it's supposed to be an objective narrative. But objective doesn't mean boring. If you can use exciting writing for the storm's most exciting part, go for it. But KISS - keep it simple stupid. Strong waves are gonna destroy things. High waves are going to flood things. Hurricanes are gonna hurricane. The tricky part for any storm is figuring out what makes it unique, and how to write it in an interesting way. These small changes can take the quality writing that you've already done, and just polished it to the next level. Remember that the 1944 article wasn't born in a vacuum. It was refined, just like any other article/piece of writing is. Oh, and....

I wish my brain were able to think more like a typical person!

Meh, neurotypicals are overrated, ignorance may be bliss but this is a complicated world with a complicated history. I have much more respect for the outside thinkers, the weirdos, the ones who challenge order and do their own thing! It takes time to refine the process, and questioning if you're doing it right is unfortunately part of that process. Just remember why you're doing this (something like: because an ignorant population is a dangerous thing and being a part of the largest volunteer information collaboration is worth the effort) and you'll get used to doing all of this. Even the part about thinking not like a normal person. Normalness is overrated. Keep doing you, CVW! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

A few things:

• I don't think you should list the exact latitude and longitude, as the average person can't imagine where that is, what's why I suggested mentioning the distance from a specific place when discussing the origins
• "frontal axis" is probably too complex for the average person, when "weather front" is probably better
• "The disturbance moved over warm ocean waters" - the direction would be nice
• Modulated by the Icelandic Low, the ridge–trough interplay drew a polar air mass southward over the warm water - still too complicated of a sentence. I wouldn't suggest starting out with "modulated by the Icelandic Low" because most people, even weather nerds, won't know what that means.
• The clashing winds works as a way of describing the atmospheric instability
• "mirroring another storm a few weeks ago" - this should be "few weeks prior"
• Yes the eyewall should be mentioned in the MH, and the shift in track near Florida
• Most of the preparations are pretty sensible. You don't have to mention so many warnings, as I usually try condensing too much of that info, but everything you have reads well. The only exception is: "Bearers from Stuart went forth to forewarn distant settlements." This doesn't seem important.
• "Palm Beach, then 200 mi (320 km) from the storm, erected a 40-foot (12 m) makeshift barrier to forestall erosion." - this seems like preparations
• I'm guessing "impact notes" is more of a starting paragraph for the impact section?
• "Other stations citywide reported gusts of at least 85 mph (137 km/h), with a peak velocity of 130 mph (210 km/h)." - I'm not sure why there's the mention of the 85 mph, when the much more impressive gust was the 130 mph.
• "White housing was wrecked, along with black hovels, debris of which was blown onto Federal Highway" - this is probably something you want to avoid. Publications were much more racist in the early 20th century, and I've read MWR reports that specified white deaths, and unspecified deaths of black people. The hurricane saw no racial lines. That being said, I suppose it's probably fine to mention the Hialeah damage "including the African-American quarter",
• "A press dispatch related that wave action in Daytona Beach compressed the shoreline "into a billiard-table smoothness"." - this is fluff. Just because stuff is in newspapers doesn't mean every bit needs to be included.
• "Tall waves pounded Las Olas Beach, flooding beachfront neighborhoods, and topped an elevated strip of land between the sound and the ocean." - this seems redundant
• I think as you organize the info more (tidal info together, crops/tree damage together) the impact section will come together more. In general, ask yourself, "will a reader find this interesting". If it's more of the same, then probably not, but if it's another example of the storm's unique impacts, then it's probably fine.

I hope all this helps! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh the MWR deaths by race wasn’t for this storm. It was some east coast storm. I only mentioned it as an example of older sources being racist. I also said that it was fine to mention the Hialeah African-American quarter, as that is an actual neighborhood. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

As a draft, the article is in awesome shape, and in good position for an FA run down the line. I always suggesting doing a GAN first. At this point it's more than publishable, and is a significant improvement over the existing article. If you want to keep your edit history, I can do a page history merge, to preserve the edits you made. Because there was a bot that edited the sandbox, technically you should do that option over a copy and paste. Would you like me to do that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh yea, just because I had a lot of notes, doesn't mean the article was poorly written by any means! I tend to review things with an eye for getting articles featured. To set the bar any lower would invite the potential to be lazy with writing, or close paraphrasing, or whatnot. Nice find with the public domain pic, but it's not the most interesting unfortunately. Another option is trying to find images published by the Associated Press. A lot of their images lack a copyright symbol, so they're actually public domain. But I'm not sure how many of them you'd find for 1935.

As for some of the other projects, yea I still feel that the 1947 one would be best as a single article. Given the time period, I doubt there's much outside of the US, and I doubt there's too much US impact out of Florida. The downside of going by county, as you did, is the potential for similar types of impacts being repeated, again, such as coastal flooding and downed trees. For example, State Route A1A is mentioned across four different paragraphs. And so this stands out as a bit redundant:

"where the storm pulverized 3 mi (4.8 km) of State Highway A1A; sightseers marveled at slabs of the highway "cracking and breaking like an ice-flow", leaving "not a piece" behind. "

Downed trees are mentioned in twelve paragraphs. Some of these mentions could be broader, that several areas were affected by downed trees, and then save the specific example when the fallen trees did something different, like injure someone. Unlike the Yankee hurricane, the 1947 one had more impacts, so you have sentences like this:

"Only six people sought first aid during the storm."

...that are pretty useless in the article compared to some of the other bits you have. But it's better to have too much info and refine it, than for it to be too short. I do think you have a bit of a queue of potential articles that could do well on FAC! A few notes though: first, people are picky at FAC, so be prepared for all sorts of comments. Second, people aren't likely to review just because an article is on FAC. They're more likely to review if you review other articles on FAC and leave a link to your FAC. Your other drafts look pretty good, like the 1888 and 1878 ones, but those might be harder to get to FA, depending how much effort you want to put toward getting eyes on the article. It's easier when a storm is destructive and it's easy to say "check out how destructive this storm was and why you should read it", almost like an advertisement to get people excited about your FAC. So the bigger/more impactful storms tend to have an easier time on FAC.

Oh yea, lemme know when you're ready with the Yankee hurricane btw! Great job on that again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Nice job on 1878. I wouldn't worry about the damage total - that's a rare thing before the 1950s. I'm more worried about the death toll. The 36 deaths is quite a bit more than what the season article has. Would you mind adding the deaths to the season article, and including the source for each area? For example, you list nine deaths in Canada, but how do you calculate that? The article says:

"Four individuals drowned in the Toronto area, and four others were extricated from an adrift bridge. Five more flood-related deaths occurred at Galt, Markham, and Meadowville (now Meadowvale)."

However, two of those cities are in the Toronto area, so is it a double count? Where are the six "elsewhere" deaths you mention in the table? "In the United States the hurricane caused at least 11 deaths, nine of them from Pennsylvania southward" - but the source you cited only says 9 US deaths. And also Haiti, you mention 11 deaths in the article, but the table says 16. Also, where in the article does it say "two" deaths for Trinidad and Tobago? The article says "a few", is that why you say 2? It's just a few small inconsistencies that you should address before publishing, because the 1878 article is a GAN right now, and this article might affect that article.

And one last note. Similar to the Yankee hurricane, try avoiding unattributed quotes. You have it a few times in the article. It's better to describe the damage than to say "Everything" in the path was ruined.

The article is really good though for such an old storm! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Alright, the Yankee draft has been published! One quick question. The impact table says 10 deaths in Florida, but the prose says "Statewide eight direct deaths resulted from the storm, along with a few from cardiac arrest." I suggest having them match, even if the table says a minimum of 8 deaths (with unknown additional fatalities). It's better to have >8 than to assume than "a few" means 2. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh yea! If old newspapers don't have a copyright for the photographs, then they are public domain. But you have to double check that the next page in the newspaper doesn't list the copyright. Also, yes, if you can, describe each death (or if multiple occurred at the same time, list the incident). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Yea that description works fine. That way people who see the nine deaths in the table can see where that's all explained. I'd also suggest making sure the death total matches the season section, and then have that same brief summary when mentioning Florida deaths. Be sure to also add to the season effects table. That way, your work becomes synchronized with one of the main Wikipedia articles that links to it. And then down the line, perhaps update List of Florida hurricanes (1900-49) too, if you wanted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

The dollar totals aren't nearly as important as the death tolls, especially pre-1950. Regarding the small dollar totals, I point to significant figures when it comes to rounding. If you have multiple totals in the 100,000's, then it's fine to add them up, as a routine calculation. But $8,000 is basically a rounding error compared to $100,000. As for broader versus specific, I always try going as broad as I can, especially in introductions to section. Then you can use specific (local) examples if they are unique or interesting. Damage to historic buildings or historic figures is worth documenting, but run-of-the-mill damage is less important. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey again, no, the met history looks very appropriate for the 1947 storm. However, the impact section still honestly feels small, which is why I think the Effects of the 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane in Florida article should be merged. That's also why I think you should merge your drafts into the main articles, so you can get a better feel where you are. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

On June 29 and 30, 2025, you heavily edited Tornado outbreak sequence of May 1896, so that instead of the outbreak sequence being the page, it is just one of the 4 major outbreaks during it being what is on the page now, without you changing the name of the article, and changing the days covered from May 15-28, to May 24-28, which leaves out 3 major outbreaks containing 2 more F5 tornadoes, including one of the largest on record (Seneca-Oneida F5), and leaving many other articles linked to a page that no longer covers the tornadoes they link to (mostly the F5s). You didn’t put any of the old information you deleted into a separate article either, you just deleted it.

My question is, why did you delete all that material instead of creating a new article? You haven’t even changed the name of the article to someone akin to “The 1896 St. Louis Tornado Outbreak“, you just kept it named a sequence even though it is not what the page contains now.

My predicament is that I would like to revert the page, but multiple more edits have been made since your contribution, and since you are such a veteran contributor and I don’t wish to revert something counterproductively, I’m wondering if there might be something I’m missing? I’m truly baffled right now. Lavabite (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@Lavabite: I changed the article based on the definition that I obtained here from United States Man. The other F5s belonged to different events from that of May 24–28, but you are right in that I could have handled this better, or at least discussed the changes beforehand. I think that Halls4521 and/or others planned to recreate some the material in this draft (for the Sherman F5). To be honest, at the time I was not sure how best to reorganize the information that was about to be removed, given that a lot of it did not seem to be very detailed and/or lengthy, even though the events themselves were noteworthy. I am not so adept at restoring old material, however; maybe someone else can help work something out? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Saw I was mentioned here. Not so sure I would’ve changed the dates and completely deleted information in this case, as that really doesn’t help the root purpose of Wikipedia (information). These older events have to be handled differently than newer ones and if a month of significant tornadoes from the 1890s needs to be lumped together into one article I don’t think that hurts anything. The amount of overall information is extremely limited compared to now so an event from the present would likely be handled differently. United States Man (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

I’m not going to interfere but I would think that information needs to be restored and upgraded to the new table format along with May 24-28. United States Man (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@United States Man: If I were to bring back the information (using this version), would putting it in a new article for Tornadoes of 1896 be appropriate? (I have already started a draft.) CapeVerdeWave (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

You wouldn’t exactly be able to put the tornado tables in that article unless you fashioned it differently than the current Tornadoes of XX articles. United States Man (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the article and added a lot of things from the newer edits into the old version, but a lot of the formatting of the reference lists, info boxes, and citations aren’t like how you changed them, since I don’t really know how to do that. I also didn’t redo the changes to a lot of the tornadoes that were just in the tornado table. It would be appreciated if you could do some of the formatting work you did before (minus the erasing of tornadoes). Also, if there is any other glaring issues, feel free to change those, and I hope we can still be chill, even though I erased a lot of your work. Thanks! Lavabite (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Done! I also moved the article as requested. It looks pretty good, and it should pass GAN easily. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Wait a minute, you enjoy the aspect of working with other people, editing a single document, and perhaps documenting each edit and preserve the history so we can keep track of who added what... almost like you enjoy the collaborative aspect of Wikipedia :P My favorite thing to do is to write articles- summarize information and find the most interesting way of writing it. But a lot of times I do really dumb things like start a sentence and not finish it, have typos, repeat repeat a a word word, that kind of thing. And sometimes other people have a better way of writing things that I might not have taken the most time to write out. I appreciated your (and others') recent edits to Jeanne, Frances, and Camille, all of which I want to get featured at some point. In fact, I just added the idea of having an FAC queue for the project, in case there are people who want to take certain articles to FAC but might need some help. Now is a good time to do stuff like that since it's the NHEM off season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

The last thing is uncertainty about the deaths. The article only talks about 12 deaths in Haiti. Also, how do you specifically get to the death toll in Canada? You say four deaths in Galt, but the source only said one, unless I read wrong. The sourcing of the deaths might be the only issue you'll face at GAN, but otherwise it looks pretty solid. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Yea I think it's good to go, much clearer. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

I'd check the page history for the template to see if any of the users who edited it are still active. For example, MarioProtIV or Chlod. I'm not sure why the gusts figure showed up the > twice, that's kinda why I removed it. Not to mention, we rarely include gusts in the infobox. That's mainly for winter storms, and when there is an actual confirmed peak wind gust, not estimated, so that could be the issue, that the gusts figure isn't meant in the coding to have an estimate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1945 Florida–Outer Banks hurricane is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HurricaneZeta -- HurricaneZeta (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1945 Florida–Outer Banks hurricane has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of HurricaneZeta -- HurricaneZeta (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. The contentious topics procedure also applies to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have re-added this content repeatedly, and after the above BLP and American Politics notice. I suggest you revert it, or you might end up at a noticeboard. How many times have you added the same content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The BLP was a standard notice for biographical articles, and at any rate no one else has made an issue of the edit(s). If there is an issue, where can we best discuss the dispute? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1925 Miami tornado is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Considering the sandbox is only around 6,200 words, I don't think you're at the point where it needs to be split. Remember, the size limit is around 8,000 words, and majority of the content of the article should be about Florida, since that's where its most powerful landfall was. Keep the warnings/preparations separate, that's standard stuff for an article. Also, that's normal about not getting images out of Bahamas, so I wouldn't worry there. That being said, you shouldn't have Florida impact images in the Bahamas section.

A general suggestion though for how to manage the information. You still go into a lot of quotes, but that's not the best way to build out an article. Here are a few questionable quotes that would be better as prose:

• an eyewitness said it "did a sort of charleston". - this is cute but sounds like it's meant to be an entertaining quip in a newspaper, and not an encyclopedia description.
• including multi-story casinos on South Beach, which seemed to have endured "a barrage of heavy cannon for days", according to an observer. - I don't think the quote is especially illustrative of the hurricane's damage, but rather just these particular buildings, so it doesn't add much.
• In Fort Lauderdale Las Olas Boulevard was said by a onetime mayor to resemble "a river rather than a street", covering town to a depth of 3 ft (0.91 m). - the important thing was the flooding, not the quote or the onetime mayor, so you could say, "Floodwaters reached 3 ft (0.91 m) deep in Fort Lauderdale."
• "Surf invaded the interior of the Hollywood Beach Hotel, depositing a sand layer on the second floor that reached "half way to the ceiling", according to a visitor." - this is an example where you probably go into too much detail. I would prefer having a single paragraph about coastal structures that were impacted.
• At the Las Olas Inn a coconut copse that drew sightseers for 30 years was prostrated, while waves gutted the first floor of the inn. - no quotes here but I'm not sure what a coconut copse is. This is a level of detail that might be too detailed, since you had already mentioned this Inn as already being damaged.
• The surge also inundated Clewiston, reportedly leaving numerous bodies along the road connecting the city with Miami. A survey team noted that the townsite was so devastated as to be "difficult to determine" from the air, but no deaths occurred there. - this is contradictory of there were no deaths, but there were numerous bodies. Also, "difficult to determine" isn't a great quote, and I'm not sure what this adds, other than the town was devastated (which can be written simpler)
• which were dubbed a "mass of wreckage" by the Fort Myers Press - somewhat a powerful quote, but it would be a better quote if it was about the area first affected in Florida. I don't know how much this adds, other than some sensationalism.

You're definitely on the right track with the article, but I hope my recommendations help you flesh out the article without adding too much. It's a delicate balance, since you want to be thorough, but you don't want to be boring. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes! If you have statewide damage totals, or total number of anything, those are better to include than individual accounts. For example, something like “the hurricane produced above-normal tides from X to Y location.” You’re on the right track with the article. The tricky part is knowing if you go too far, but it’s always easier later on to cut stuff and streamline info. It’s harder fleshing it out when you don’t even know what sources have been used. And btw sorry I’m on mobile, I’m away from my computer for a few days. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

There's a good balance of what needs to be done, so I'll give a few examples of what to focus on.

• "Based on the duration of the calm, scientists in 2010 assessed a near-normal radius of maximum wind of 20 nmi (23 mi; 37 km),[4] while older analysis calculated an eye width of 13 mi (21 km)" - this should be in the met history. Make sure the stuff in the impact belongs there.
• the 18-story Meyer–Kiser Building bore considerable damage,[66] swaying and vibrating violently during the storm;[67] an eyewitness said it mimicked a charleston. - cute but it's not really impact. This feels like fluff. Same with:

• which seemed to have undergone a multiday cannon bombardment.

• Between the city and Miami to its south 13,825 residences were afflicted, of which 4,725 were total losses - this is good summary stuff, so it should appear in some kind of summary/intro paragraph.
• the storm tore apart 868 homes in Fort Lauderdale... In Fort Lauderdale over 3,500 buildings sustained severe damage - this could be combined together. Try combining similar pieces of information together when you can.
• Many yachts sank in the river as well - this should be mentioned when you mention other boat/ship effects

Another problem is that there are way too many pictures. The text shouldn't be so squished between left and right side. Try cutting out like half of them, keeping only the most interesting examples of storm damage. Hope this helps. One more thing to consider is that your drafts aren't going to be edited by other people as much if it stays in the draft space, compared to the main space. I highly suggest incorporating your edits from all of your sandboxes into the main articles. That way, other people will be more likely to keep building on what you have done. A lot of Wikipedia articles were first written like two decades ago, and there weren't nearly as many sources available online. You're doing a good job so far, but I think you'd have an easier time collaborating in the mainspace. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That makes sense. So first off, the impact-specific paragraph only makes sense in some contexts, like tornadoes, and maybe distant tidal effects. However, coastal areas near the impact zone might also experience the highest winds, as you noted with some sources not specifying the cause. So in that case, it's better to organize info in terms of importance. Start with statewide effects, damage totals, and fatalities. Then focus on the area with the most impacts, gradually going outward to the areas with the least impacts (but still worth mentioning). Focusing first on the areas with greatest damage will be your best examples of storm damage, and hopefully there's enough different examples of impact to keep it interesting. What's not interesting is reading the same type of impact over and over again, just with different wording. I mentioned earlier about trees falling, and there being lots of examples of that. What's better is to combine a few sources and say something broader, like "the strong winds defoliated or knocked down many trees", and letting the "many" carry the weight of multiple examples.

"Over 60 people were rumored to have been fatally pinned beneath fallen buildings in the towns of Dania, Hallandale, and Hollywood." - this is a good example where it should probably be in some kind of introductory paragraph describing the deaths in Florida. Since fatalities are the worst possible outcome of a natural disaster (can't get worse than losing your life), those are good to mention early on. However, the "were rumored" part is very wishy-washy, and you should avoid weasel words. The same sentence could say something like, "News reports indicated that dozens of people were fatally pinned beneath fallen buildings." I put the weight of the "rumor" part by saying that it was in a news report, and may/may not have happened. I opted to say "dozens" rather than "over 60" since it was unconfirmed, but that's an editorial choice. Also, since it was unconfirmed, I didn't specifically mention the three cities. Given the large death toll, these deaths might well have happened, and ideally you'd get a breakdown of deaths by every place, so you're not reliant on rumors 100 years later.

Have you thought about integrating your sandboxes? If you want help on them, it's best to just integrate them, that way others will see your edits and help copyedit and flesh things out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, I've told you before, just copy and paste your sandboxes into the main space. Or, if any of your sandboxes have a lot of edits from other users, then you have to do a page history merge. But since you've been the primary editor in your sandboxes, you can just integrate your sandboxes by copying them in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1925 Miami tornado is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article 1925 Miami tornado has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Since you were the only writer, you can copy the sandbox, no need to merge it to preserve the edit history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2026 (UTC)