Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [1].

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

Notified:
WP Canada, noticed in March

Review section

This 2005 promotion has not been reviewed since 2007, and needs a bit of a touchup for modern FA standards. The primary issue seems to be lack of inline citations in parts, although there are also some lesser layout issues caused by

MOS:SANDWICHing. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment I added in line citations and fixed and reformatted the book and other citations. Added more text.
The "current values" is understated, and I don't know when anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that. This was in the lead, and the answer is in the sourced body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that there has been quite a bit of editing since the nomination was posted; could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the references added during the improvements, Enns, appears to be possibly self-published. What are the author's credentials? Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Some work done over the last month, but the largest issues remain - uncited text etc. Additionally, one of the sources added (Enns) doesn't seem to be reliable, and I've found (and tagged) a spot where the source doesn't support all of the text, which indicates a possible other concern. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: 7&6=thirteen made excellent edits in early May, but improvements have been limited for the past several weeks. There are lots of uncited paragraphs that need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very few uncited paragraphs are basically weather reports about the storm's progress. I presume those are in the newspapers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that "very few" is the right descriptor. The second paragraphs of November 7 and November 8 are currently effectively unsourced, as the only reference is a note that just consists of an indirect citation for wind speeds, which does not obviously support text such as " Long ships traveled all that day through the St. Marys River, all night through the Straits of Mackinac, and early Sunday morning up the Detroit and St. Clair rivers". Much of the November 9 section lacks inline citations. The only source in the entire November 10 and 11 section is an indirect reference for wind speeds, which doesn't obviously support much of the content. The are two entire uncited paragraphs in On the lakes. There are also a couple spots in the Ships foundered text where I tagged statements not supported by the references. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
??To me it appears that the second paragraphs in the November 7th and 8th section s are sourced to: Brown, David G. (2002). White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. International Marine/ McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138037-X. I think that the "for wind speeds see.." note does not limit it's applicability to just that. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I would recommend that the reference be placed at the paragraph, instead of in the note. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Z1720 here; its not obvious to those not working on the article that that is the case, and
WP:FACR #1c states claims [...] are supported by inline citations where appropriate, and there are a number of specific statements in here that are not self-proving or general common knowledge and require the inline citations. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I'll work on fixing that. BTW, I'm more interested in article quality and not so much about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with just applying the current cite directly without having the book in hand. Perhaps someone else can do it. I just ordered the book. I am interested in working on the article and will do so. But it's not going to be fast and I'm not concerned about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see above that it's thought that some sourcing might be in old newspapers, too - I have access to newspapers.com through
The Wikipedia Library, and I'm willing to try to find contemporary sources for stuff, if needed. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, my immediate plans are that I'll have the book tomorrow, I'll get the second paragraphs of the November 7th and 8th sections more directly sourced. And I'd be happy to do that for any other specific areas noted. Being an entire book on the topic of the article I expect that it will be pretty comprehensive. But if it were to get de-listed, I wouldn't be working on any re-submittal. Even though I did it once for SS Edmund Fitzgerald I really don't do FA-specific work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FAR co-ords are very amenable to keeping FARs "on hold" until fixes are complete. After your edits are complete North8000, I can conduct a copyedit and post clarification questions that I hope you will answer. With a little bit of work, this article can remain an FA. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to try! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book. I'm buried in the real world for the next 5 days but will start on it after that. To start with I'll be focusing on the areas noted in Hog Farm's 03:49, 9 June 2021 post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed and sourced the 2nd paragraph in the November 7th section. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished with the November 8th section. Modified text to what I was able to source and sourced it.North8000 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished getting the November 9th section sourced North8000 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished sourcing the November 10th & 11th section. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Enns source. Being questioned at FAR due to being SPS source. Also not needed. Only cited once, and that sentence is also supported by two other sources. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: - I'll try to give this another read-through son. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks. Per my edit of my comment I realized that there are still noted areas which need work. I plan to have the rest of those handled within a few days. But before or after that would be happy for any comments on how the improve the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "On the lakes" section is now tweaked to be sourcable and sufficiently sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the noted problems in "ships foundered" section.North8000 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I think that all of the noted problems have been fixed.North8000 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and layout. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HF
  • Alternate name of Big Blow in the lead needs a direct citation
  • Wouldn't hurt to have a direct citation for "By then, the storm was centered over the upper Mississippi Valley and had caused moderate to brisk southerly winds with warmer weather over the lakes. The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." - if I remember when I'm less busy I'll try to poke around in old newspaper articles to see if I can find something
  • "On November 8th ship traffic continued Traffic allowed traffic to begin flowing again" - not sure what's going on here, but I think something's off
  • "Immediately following the blizzard of Cleveland, Ohio, the city began a campaign to move all utility cables underground, in tubes beneath major streets. The project took half a decade. - probably needs an inline citation
  • "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below" - does this warrant a citation? I'm not sure that it's common knowledge since it's specific to this storm
  • Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?

This is already looking quite a bit better than when FAR was opened. Someone better with images than me may want to look through licensing, and having someone look through this for some copy editing might help, too (I don't look at prose too closely, as I'm a redneck whose not always great with English). Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on several of those bulleted items.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Big Blow" moniker has now been sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleveland transition to underground cables is now sourced. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolved "often blew in directions opposite" issue. Edit summary: "Remove "often blew opposite" statement. Unable to source, plus this aspect did not show up to be particularly relevant, plus "rare" statement is probably an un-sourcable overreach" North8000 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit removed the statement of This was the result of the storm's cyclonic motion, a phenomenon rarely seen on the Great Lakes. which I'll trust your judgment on that, as well as if the Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below. statement which still remains should remain, as well.
  • Resolved /removed" "ship traffic continued" issue. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Regarding your "Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?" question, looking at the article state as of your post, ref #42 seems unrelated to that, and so I don't understand your question. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was just wondering, because I've seen instance when the last ref before a table also covers the whole table. Was referring to the ref following The following shipwreck casualties have been documented:. If it doesn't source the individual total deaths associated to each ship, would it be possible to tie that down? I hope I don't seem excessively picky with sourcing, it's just that FA has gotten pretty source strenuous lately. Hog Farm Talk 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. I enjoy improving the article including making it a very accurate article. And the process of providing more specific sourcing has in many cases led to modifications of the text that are improvements in the article in that respect. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is resolved.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @North8000 and GreatLakesShips: - Has Plymouth been discovered? It looks like there's a bit of a controversy. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Hog Farm: Great Lakes maritime historian Ric Mixter has stated (here and here) that the wreck discovered in 1984 is likely the Erastus Corning.
            • In the Plymouth article the text says that (only) that a wreck suspected to be the Plymouth was found. But the reference/cite for for that text flatly says that it was found in 1984. @GreatLakesShips: what are your thoughts? North8000 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • The source we have currently in the article that is stating that it was definitely found wad discussed negatively at RSN once, although that was in 2012. May be best to find a stronger source and then state that it's disputed, if possible. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Hog Farm:@North8000: Based on the sources I have provided, I think the article should something like "wreckage found near Poverty Island in 1984 was suspected to be that of Plymouth, although this is unconfirmed". GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm neutral on all of this.North8000 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Resolved. I went with that. Since only the brief table entry was in question, I changed "not located" to "No confirmed location" North8000 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "....By then, the storm was centered...." issue has been resolved by removal of the sentence. I discussed this more thoroughly at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the (six) noted items have been resolved.North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720 and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a quick look, there's a bit of a contradiction - table says that Plymouth has not been definitely found, while the prose says "In 1984 the previously-unfound Plymouth was located off of Poverty island" which is pretty unequivocal. I think having another pair of eyes to look at prose would be nice. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I can't review the article at the moment because I am busy in real life. If this is still open in August I will take another look, but please don't let my busy schedule hold up this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll list this at GOCE to see if this can get a copy edit. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take a harder look at the Plymouth issue. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just listened to a 50 minute extremely detailed history of the Plymouth covering from long before the storm through the supposed find at Poverty island and up through 2020. It was put on by an organization that studies such things and produces such hosted video presentations and the expert was a guest on this one who is an author and a very careful, thorough expert researcher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJ8mHA_ZBc It's a slam-dunk that the find at Poverty island was not the Plymouth and that circa 2020 the wreck had not been found. Further, the source in the current article that said it had been found was not even about the topic, it was a memorial page for an individual that died on it. I don't want to push a FA into a question area by using a video presentation viewed as a reference, but I think that any statements that it has been found and at Poverty island are false / baseless and have no actually reliable source. I'll take them out accordingly. North8000 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. The Plymouth issue is fixed. North8000 (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks to @GreatLakesShips: which set this on a course to improvement. ~!North8000 (talk)
  • It doesn't help for Plymouth, but this is an RS that discusses the shipwrecks, so it may be helpful for that portion. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, I finished working on the noted issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

@North8000: I did a review of the article and fixed things that I could. I have some questions below that I hope you or another expert can answer:

  • "with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways?
  • I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per
    WP:CITELEDE
    ?
  • "The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.)
  • " As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation
  • WP:OVERCITE
    is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed?
  • I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below.
  • For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per
    MOS:OVERSECTION
    ?
  • "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation
  • "St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River?
  • Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article?
  • Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per
    MOS:OVERSECTION
    ?
  • November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
  • "wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area?
  • I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day?
  • First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
  • "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation.
  • "Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
  • "The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense?
  • "The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used?
  • "was also noted and criticized." By whom?
  • "In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed?
  • "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the otehr vessals. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article.
  • I did a search for images of the storm from London, Ontario archives, which I find extremely frustrating. I am going to keep looking, as I have connections in that city that might help. I also looked in Lambton County Archives (where Sarnia is located) but their database's coding is terrible and did not garner results. Ontario Archives's database did not yield results, either, though I might give them a phone call to see if a librarian can find better information. Overall, extremely frustrating trying to find Canadian images, because I want to diversify from all the Cleveland images. I won't let this stop me from recommending "keep" later on in the process.

Those are my thoughts. EDIT: Forgot to sign yesterday, so here it is: Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Work on items listed by Z1720 on August 7th

Those look like 22 good ideas that I would be happy to work on or address. Two quick notes; my interest is in improving the article rather than being concerned about FA status. Also I just came there recently and only about 5% of it was written by me. I copied your points below in order to organize responses or put them in-line:

  1. "with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways? Resolved: Good idea, I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per
    WP:CITELEDE? Preliminary partial response: I took one out where it was easy. The others will need / trigger more in-depth work including on content because some are used only in the lead.North8000 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Resolved I cut it down to two cites. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. "The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.) Resolved: Fixed. Clarified every instance of just "weather Bureau: North8000 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. " As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation. Resolved: Added a source North8000 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed? Resolved Reduced to three. Details are in the edit summaries. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below. Resolved: I think that that is fine. Also it looks like Mataafa is the overwhelmingly common name for the 1905 storm and that "Big Blow" is seldom used for it. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per
    MOS:OVERSECTION? Resolved I combined them. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation Resolved Added a cite. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River? Resolved: Yes, and I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article? Resolved: Removed this note and similar ones. Edit summaries said: "Removed note that was not useful or informative. Also, there was no specific info on this to present from the source." North8000 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per
    MOS:OVERSECTION? Response: IMHO not. IMHO the date-based framework provides an excellent structure for the core of the article, and there is already sufficient material for the two separate dates. Also, a natural expansion of the article using that framework (which I intend to do) would add additional material to each of those two separate sections. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Also, inclusion of the material under the separated headings provides the (imo important) date for each one, avoiding m,uch repetition in the text. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together? Resolved Did that. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area? Resolved:Change to "wait for the storm to pass" which more precisely matches what the source said. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day? Responded I did a pretty thorough review of this topic and due to it's size and possible future usefulness for the article, I put it at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations Resolved I removed that material, it was not sourcable as written. I will replace it with sourced material. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation. Resolved: This was old text; I never saw it in any source and it looks unsourcable as written. I removed it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me. Resolved Revised the sentence. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense? Resolved: That wording was my summary of what the source said. I dialed back the statement including removing "perfect". Answering your question, the defense is described in the following section in the article which is: "They did not have enough data (including upper atmospheric data), communications and analysis capability, or understanding of atmospheric dynamics to predict the storm, including wind directions which are key to the ability of ships to avoid or cope with the effects of the storm." North8000 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used? Resolved This has a specialized meaning for bulk carrier ship. It has narrow usage in that context but is the correct technical term. I believe that the description given covers it. I could expand but IMO that might be overkill. I also added a reference and also an internal link to an article section that explains / uses that specialized meaning.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. "was also noted and criticized." By whom? Resolved Switched to source's summary of that. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed? Partial/preliminary response Regarding change proposals and changes made directly in response to the storm, it appears that there were nearly none except the ones noted in Cleveland. That wording was my summary from the noted pages in the source. But I concur that that area needs expansion and improvement even if to say that little or nothing was proposed or changed in response to the storm. There is good material available. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Resolved I re-read the sources on this topic. Two narrow specific changes were made (I now added the additional one to the article) and other than that nothing in the sources indicates anything else was done even later in response to the storm. I modified the text accordingly. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Further note The November's Fury book which I just bought and received more directly confirms this. In essence little or no shipping related changes were made in response. I added this and cited the reference. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the other vessels. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article. Resolved Made / resolved the three specific changes. I didn't do a general expansion on the discovery of the wrecks. Right now this is in the references by the find dates which are generally on line. I plan to continue to work on the article on a longer term basis. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: if you are willing to improve the article, I and other editors will focus on whether it meets FA standards. It doesn't matter who wrote the original article, anyone is free to make changes and improvements. Please ping me when the above concerns are resolved or if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Cool. I know that I can change anything but I always start out more cautiously when I arrive at an article. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For several of these, in order to do a good job, I'll need to obtain and read/absorb more of the sources. I'm buying 2 more of the books but even just receiving them will take a week. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A GOCE copyedit I requested is being performed for the article right now. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit has now been completed. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for mention of this storm in various
London Free Press
, and I don't think I can access their archives without going to London myself, which is not going to happen because of COVID. Although I wish there was more detail about what happened in Canada, sources can't be found at this time and I withdraw that concern.
I added alt text for the images per
MOS:ALT
. A couple of other thoughts:
  • "about $130,926,000 in today's dollars" Today should be replaced with a specific year.
  • "Wind speeds reached 60 mph (97 km/h) at Duluth, Minnesota." Needs a citation
  • "Few of these factors were acted upon but many influenced the longer-term course of events." How were they influential? Are there examples?
  • Any reason why "November's Fury: The Deadly Great Lakes Hurricane of 1913" is not used as a source?
I think we are close to the end! Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: Are you able to address the above concerns? Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Sorry for the slow response. I was off the grid (where even cell phones don't reach) for 10 days. Also now buried in real life days and evenings for a few more days. The 3-4 remaining items are where I was contemplating more in-depth re-reading of material and some substantial additional work in those sections while fixing the noted items. I think I'll go not so deep and can them get them all fixed/addressed within 7 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, please ping me when completed and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Work on items listed in Z1720's September 25th post

(copy of those items plus responses follows:)

  1. "about $130,926,000 in today's dollars" Today should be replaced with a specific year. Resolved. Removed sentence.I have the book and edition specified as the source and it is not there at the noted page number, and I could find no such summary elsewhere. The noted archiving was of the conversion tables, not the source.North8000 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Also there is other (sourced) cost data elsewhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Wind speeds reached 60 mph (97 km/h) at Duluth, Minnesota." Needs a citation. Resolved Modify/expand info to match source and added source. North8000 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Few of these factors were acted upon but many influenced the longer-term course of events." How were they influential? Are there examples? Duplicate of item in August 7th list above .....I'll handle it there. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Any reason why "November's Fury: The Deadly Great Lakes Hurricane of 1913" is not used as a source? Preliminary response I can't speak for the history of the article, my significant involvement has been somewhat recent. That is one of several books I bought on this topic during recent work on the article. The bulk of the 1960 book is sort of "stories from the storm" with lots of quotes from persons involved. Slightly less useful that other books for obtaining enclyclopedic statements from. So with limited time, I didn't prioritize it for immediate reading for work on the article. I plan to fully read it. But short term I'll find at least one place to incorporate it as a reference. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Responded I was mistaken. My answer referred to "Freshwater Fury" which is already incorporated as a reference. I just noticed that"November Fury" is a different book. I just ordered it. It will take time to get it, read it, and determine suitability as a reference. I would like to leave it as just listing it as "for further reading" is currently already OK. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Resolved I bought and received the book and incorporated it as a reference North8000 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completed work on all noted points

To: @Z1720: cc @Hog Farm:} I have completed work on all of the noted points, and confirmed that / provided responses to each on this page. BTW on a longer term basis I do intend to continue work on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking pretty good now. Just a couple more (I promise I'm very close to a keep opinion here)

  • I'm not seeing where the death toll and the 68,300 tons of cargo, as well as the reference to clapotis, in the lead are mentioned in the body. Can these be added to the main body of the article as well?
  • Would it be possible to get a direct reference for note E?
  • The lowest pressure in the infobox doesn't seem to be mentioned/cited anywhere else

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 15:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Workspace copy of items from Hog Farm's October 27th post
  1. I'm not seeing where the death toll and the 68,300 tons of cargo, as well as the reference to clapotis, in the lead are mentioned in the body. Can these be added to the main body of the article as well? Resolved Done (both) North8000 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would it be possible to get a direct reference for note E? Resolved I removed it. Unable to source and it is probably incorrect. Others in the same storm appear to have preceeded it. The original source probably meant "not prior to this storm" but it was not given. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The lowest pressure in the infobox doesn't seem to be mentioned/cited anywhere else. Initial response Someone else put that into the info box. For me to be comfortable inserting / replicating it elsewhere I'd need to find a source. I'm working on doing that. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Resolved Done. Including finding and providing a reference.North8000 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm's items copied in by North8000 North8000 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 29, 2021 status

I've resolved / responded on all of the noted points. But I see a couple of other issues (and old one which was lack of technical / overview coverage of the weather of the storm itself and that my work has created a few overly short paragraphs.) I'm working on those before I do any more pings.North8000 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when you are ready for me to look at it again. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: @Hog Farm: I completed work on those extra issues that I noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's been improved enough; many thanks to North8000 for this. Only other thing I saw is infobox gives low pressure as 968.5 while body says 969, this is minor and doesn't prevent me from thinking this should be kept. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Cool. BTW I found a source for the un-rounded 968.5 and changed it in the body to 968.5, so now they match. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a copy edit and fixed some minor things. One concern is the article says: "The storm was first noticed on Thursday November 6" do we know who noticed it? This concern doesn't prevent my "keep" assessment. Many thanks to North8000. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never heard the word clapotis, which is used in the lead, forcing the reader to click out. Please insert a parenthetical explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting needs remain:
    At the time the U.S. Weather Bureau did not have enough data, communications, analysis capability, and understanding of atmospheric dynamics to understand or predict the storm.
    Comma after “at the time”? Understanding to understand ?? the storm, or any storm of this nature?
    Studies of the available information and data from the storm have been done in more modern times enabling a description of the weather mechanisms of the storm.[2] Those reveal that it was actually two storms.
    This could be tightened. For example,
    More modern studies of the available information and data from the storm provide better descriptions of its weather mechanisms, and reveal that it was actually two storms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there and suggest a fresh set of eyes to copyedit. It is unlikely I will have time to revisit, so trust others to determine if an adequate copyedit is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved items struck. I will continue on the talk page here, as this page is excruciatingly long already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to comments

(Suggest continuing the final review in the previous section above)

As I mentioned earlier, my main interest is in improving the article rather than in retaining FA status.This is a complex-to-cover topic which is of interest to me which makes such more fun. I'm less into the higher level of precision formatting that only comes up at FA, but I'm happy to work on specifically noted ones. If anyone else would like to work in those areas, cool. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding date formatting and dash format rules, it looks like SandyGeorgia fixed those. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I fixed those technical trivialities (see diffs I provided above), but I am not the best person to address the more complex copyedit and terminology issues. Thanks for all the progress here ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the "November Gale" and "November Witch" terminology IMHO my first thought is that it is better as is. I'm not one to worry if someone else wants to change it but am reticent to do so myself. Here is my rationale. First, they are both terms without precise definitions, so I don't think there is a basis for determining whether or not they mean precisely the same thing. "November gale" is used far more in sources and literature. I think that "November Witch" exists more in the poetic / musical realm. I'm guessing that it has an Wikipedia article because it was popularized by the Gordon Lightfoot song. ("The Witch of November comes early") even if it the less-often used term. So the article introduces both terms and used "November gale" in the lead. Perhaps I should create a "November gale" article. Or move and expand the "November witch" article leaving a redirect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever route is taken … right now we have an undefined red-link in the lead, and confusion in the body of the article about whether the two things are the same; both need to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved I redirected and broadened the "witch" articles to November gale and broadened it a bit to include the November gale term. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "studies of available info.... Thanks, good idea and done. I write a lot of technical stuff that gets published and tend to write sentences that are so chock full of content that they are hard to read or poor prose I have to have someone fix them for me before publishing. :-) The "available data" was intended to add in the note that data from the time was incomplete. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the big problems for laypersons trying to copyedit weather articles is that, at a certain point, our attention span for reading through so much technical stuff wanes. That is why it often takes more than one pass from even good copyeditors to get good prose. I think we could use another pass here (I only gave samples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "The storm was first noticed...." Done / fixed. Re-introduced the name of the storm. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Separating responses from issues makes striking and re-reviewing more difficult (going between two sections to review and strike?); just noticing that almost none of what I raised above has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Commonly I see where folks put several issues/question in one post and the only way I can respond (without posting in the middle of their post) is to respond separately. Sorry that I failed to notice that you divided yours into separate posts to facilitate that. I'll put any additional responses by your posts. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob-- but it's moving between two different editing sections that was hard. It's OK to separate your response, but within the same section, so one can see all text when responding :) Also, we don't typically use sub-heads at FAR, and a separate sub-head for each response is bloating the table of contents; I removed your sub-head once, but you re-added it :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize that I was re-adding. I thought that I just forgot to put it in! :-) North8000 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding clapotis Resolved I added a parenthetical explanation. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "understand or predict the storm". I added the suggested comma. Regarding the two instances of "understand" the first refers to atmospheric dynamics in general, and the second was for this particular storm. I moved the second instance of "understand" later into the sentence to eliminate (I think) the prose sound problem. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this subsection (I believe) responds to all of the specific items in SandyGeorgia's November 1 posts. I went through FA (and article of the day) a long time ago at SS Edmund Fitzgerald and since then have not been an FA person. Would be happy to follow any specific requests/guidance on organizing & formatting any future responses here. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice changes … I will continue at the talk page of this FAR, as this FAR is already excruciatingly long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Coords; good progress has been made and I should be able to revisit my talk page comments before the end of this week (busy today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress, still reviewing, working on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status November 10
An auspicious date on the Great Lakes.
Very good progress was made on the talk page of this FAR (including addressing image copyvio and other image issues along with prose, MOS, sourcing, and citation formatting), so I am now bringing the remaining points back to this main page for others to scrutinize.
  • "Waves on the Great Lakes (especially the shallower ones) can be taller, shorter and have shorter periods than ocean waves." Do we really need this statement? Because if we do, we have to define for the layreader what is meant by the "period" of a wave. I don't see the value added in this sentence, but not a lake, ship or weather person :) Can we shorten that whole thing to:
    • Waves on the Great Lakes can be taller than ocean waves and, compared to the ocean, there is less maneuvering "sea room" and closer proximity to shores making it more difficult for ships to weather storms.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the background on how waves and storms on the Great lakes can be worse for ships than on the oceans is useful and also important for understanding the article. But the "taller" is misleading at best (I didn't notice that) and it has the other issue that you noted. I'll rework it (both in the body and the lead)North8000 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in your hands :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done North8000 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances throughout where the prose needs fine tuning, is more complex than necessary, or needs clarity; I can chip away at pieces as time allows, but @Hog Farm, Z1720, and GreatLakesShips: the prose here is not yet up to snuff, so "all hands on deck" can help bring this over the line. This is a complex article, and I am concerned that we need both the Weather WikiProject and the Ships Wikiproject (oddly not tagged on talk) to comb through it, and I don't believe we can "keep" this listing without considerable prose work. The biggest pieces have been done, and we are almost there :) Thanks North8000 for taking this on! It surely would have been easier to write from scratch :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I write a fair amount of technical stuff that gets published in "general reader" areas. My drafts are usually precise and fact filled and hard to read and then I need to have someone work on the prose.Which usually makes a bit less precise / complete and more readable. I have a hard time making those tradeoffs so prose would be best done by somebody else.

The subject of this article is really about 45 articles, some of them highly complex and technical covering:

  • About 38 shipwreck articles many with substantial stories related to them
  • An immense, complex, long lasting storm, with only spotty data and no understanding of it from the time which has been studied multiple times since with more of an understanding developed from those studies
  • A story about the weather agencies of the time including them throughout the storm
  • About 10 closely related and highly relevant technical, operational, regulatory and governmental topics. E.G ship design, communications, ship operating stuff etc.
  • A multi-day weather disaster in Cleveland.

IMO this article needs an epic rework job including substantial expansion in many areas and smoothly knitting all of it together, which would take a substantial reorganization. Maybe doing all of that well for the 45 areas is beyond the normal FA? I plan to keep working on it but that's more likely to take 2 years at a comfortable pace rather than the "sprint" I've been doing during FAR. Also, if it loses FA, I would not be doing a re-submittal. More people working on it would be very welcome, but more people coming in just to make general noting of issues / suggestions for improvement without working on it would just add to the long list that I already have in my head. I've enjoyed the intense working on this, including all of the specific feedback from the FA experts and resultant learning experiences. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome, it’s a better article for your work. I do agree with you that it could benefit from substantial expansion and knitting together, but have a harder time letting the FA status go, after all the work you’ve done. If I had stronger prose, I would try to help you more, but alas, I am more able to spot prose issues than I am to fix them :) Seeing some of what gets through FAC makes it seem unfair to apply a stricter standard at FAR, so I will defer to others on the final outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through this with eyes to maybe smooth out some of the prose wrinkles, and I did come across a single spot that gives me a question.

  • (edit conflict) "Around midnight on November 6–7, the steamer Cornell, which was 50 miles (80 km) west of Whitefish Point in Lake Superior, ran into a sudden northerly gale and was severely damaged. This gale lasted until late November 10 and almost forced Cornell ashore" - seems to sourced to a letter or possibly the ship's log. It seems a bit odd that it isn't entirely clear if this gale is the storm itself or not, but the source does not allow that conclusion to be drawn. Do Brown or Schumacher or the others say anything about Cornell. If this gale isn't a separate storm, it may be best to not have it in the prelude. My instinct then would be to merge the description of the storm buildup that appears in the storm section above the weather maps into the prelude section, and then have the storm section be for the day-by-day recap. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cornell is a "near miss" story that started at the beginnings of the storm. I "inherited" that with the article. I'm guessing that the wiki-editor put it in because it starts early early in the storm as is material for the "prelude" section. Also maybe because there is a full story on it. There are few or no stores from the ships that outright sank because nobody from them survived. There's nothing on it in Brown and although I've not finished reading Schumaker yet, looks like he has nothing on it. On your second note, I do plan a major expansion and reorganization and my plan was to organize it as you describe. But I was thinking more long term rather than during the "sprint" of a FAR. Especially since heavy work is bound to introduce lots of things that will need tweaking and re-review. But I could condense the work down to a month or 2....I don't know what the FA/FAR possibilities are. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article text mentions more than 250 people killed. Our ships chart has 253 … do we have any source mentioning whether there was any loss of life on land ? I can’t see that we discuss that … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I seen so far was a mention that the loss of life in even the worst on-land place (Cleveland) which I think was about 2 people was minimal. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we source a statement saying that there minimal loss of life on land, or something of that nature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I read it somewhere in Brown so I'll just need to find it.North8000 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved I put a few sourced sentences in on this.North8000 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, the wording is odd: "Approximately five deaths in Cleveland were attributed to the storm, ... " a death is a death. Could you find an alternate to "approximately" that explains why it's not a certain number? "Five deaths in Cleveland may have been due to the storm"? Or something like that ? Depends on why the uncertainty ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I was trying to respond to your idea of putting something in on this while skirting the edge between summary and wp:synth. Also what I found meshed/combined with the slighter later sentence about putting the wires underground. The source just said few deaths, and then described 5 deaths related from the storm. I'll try something a little different but am not sure how to handle this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it....see my previous post. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have two Keeps above (from Hog Farm and Z1720). I have expressed some reservations about this article, but all-in-all, it has been greatly improved at FAR. I feel it would be unnecessarily strict of me to withhold a Keep declaration, when the article is on par with much of what is passing FAC these days, and I am confident that North8000 will continue working towards any needed upgrades. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A reminder I want to lodge here for the benefit of others, seeing the condition the article was in when I first viewed it; please don't call the GOCE in to an FA-level article, unless you are personally familiar with the copyeditor. They rarely get the job done at the FA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not being in the role of being an advocate for FA status, I've been heavily involved (and enjoying) making suggested improvements and so I'm not sure if I should be weighing in. If so, my recommendation would be "keep". I think that this meets normal FA standards. There has been expert guidance, suggestions and issues raised regarding those standards and I think that I have responded on all of the specific items. I do see a lot of improvements that could be made and plan to make them in the upcoming months and years. However, IMO the improvements relate to the fact that this covers an epic topic which could be 40 articles, and how to deal with that reality in one article rather than being an issue with normal FA standards. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Great_Lakes_Storm_of_1913/archive2&oldid=1208331985"