Talk:Hurricane Hazel

Canada bias?

I know it's a featured article, but that doesn't mean it's perfect. There seems to be a Canadian bias in the article. Nine of the fourteen sentences in the lede cover the Canadian impact, and when introducing the US portion, it even says "On its way to Canada, it affected several more states." There is a separate article for Canada's impact already, and yet that is the largest portion of the impact section. Is it just me, or does something seem off? The North Carolina section seems decent, I suppose, but for producing hurricane force gusts in New York City, it seems that most of the US is glossed over. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

You've discussed this quite a bit with me in IRC, but to respond briefly here as well. While Hazel was certainly a very significant event both in the US and Canada, it was a much more unique event in Canada, especially Ontario. There simply is more sourcing and information available on the effects in Canada. As regards the lede, I attempted to not merely mechanically summarise the article sections, but to bring out the important, and unique characteristics of Hazel. If you have anything specific that could be added -- or removed -- I will happily consider it. However, I can't exactly do much: I've split a lot of the Canada stuff into its own article, but I can't make something (article content) out of nothing (sources about the US that are not as extensive than for Canada). Maxim_(talk) 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a storm's uniqueness should result in it having the majority of content, particularly when there is more damage and deaths in the United States. I'm fine with there being a Canadian sub-article, but given that, the information should be proportional to the impact. The fact that Hurricane Irene was one of only two hurricanes on record to strike New Jersey doesn't mean that should get significantly more emphasis. By word count, the US section is only 75% of the length of the Canadian section, despite causing 6 more deaths and twice the damage. Furthermore, Hazel was actually a hurricane in the US, but was extratropical in Canada. I really think the Canadian section should be cut down a bit so there isn't undue weight. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricanehink here. If you'll just look at the lede, you will see two paragraphs contaminated with the Canada bias. It summarizes the US impact a bit too much, and not even without mentioning Canada. About 50 percent of the lede is about Canada right now. If anything, this should focus more on Haiti. I know the sources for the country might be sparse, but for the amount of destruction and deaths it caused there, I don't think "In Haiti, Hazel destroyed 40% of the coffee trees and 50% of the cacao crop, affecting the economy for several years to come" would suffice. And lol, if you're going to inflate Canada damage totals, do it for the rest of the totals as well. Auree ★ 17:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Patent Canada bias

I know this issue has previously been discussed, but it was never fully resolved, and with Wikipedia's increasingly rigorous quality standards over the previous couple of years I think it has become all the more pressing. The neutrality in this article is severely compromised by an overbearing amount of information on Canada, in contrast to considerably less coverage on other, similarly devastated areas. Even from the lead, the bias is strikingly obvious, as about 70% of the readable prose in that section covers Canada (the country is even mentioned when U.S. impact is covered). This, along with a handful of other issues, such as an oddly structured meteorological history with mentions of impact and several poorly worded paragraphs, lead me to believe a FAR is appropriate. Auree ^★★ 21:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The neutrality in this article is severely compromised by an overbearing amount of information on Canada, in contrast to considerably less coverage on other, similarly devastated areas.

Our articles must reflect the coverage in reliable sources. Please offer some sources that could be used to pad some section you are not happy with. For those interested in the article who are living in the US, you may have a bit luck with that than I would.

Let's start with the areas the storm struck during its initial stages. It moved right over Grenada at hurricane intensity, passing very close to nearby islands, yet there's absolutely no information on those countries in the article. I doubt there are no reliable sources out there at all that cover the impact in these areas, especially Grenada, and a quick Google Search already brought up some of these. Auree ^★★ 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Please share the results of your Google search; it would help in allaying some of the concerns about the article. Maxim_(talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There were a few book sources with info on Grenada, but as I'm on my phone at the moment I can't regularly access Google Books. I recommend starting with this source, provided to me by User:Jason Rees, which has a lot of detailed impact for several of the affected areas, including Grenada. Auree ^★★ 22:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Even from the lead, the bias is strikingly obvious, as about 70% of the readable prose in that section covers Canada (the country is even mentioned when U.S. impact is covered).

So fix it. We could reach a compromise between what you and your IRC pals want, and the greater Canadian significance in terms of the aftermath.

"So fix it" is a horribly lousy response, so I won't even bother replying. I however do resent the fact that you so acrimoniously presume I'm involved with the IRC, based on... what exactly? lol. Even if I were, it has little do with anything. Auree ^★★ 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

See {{sofixit}}. If you have a problem with an article, the best way to resolve it to actually fix it. I have significant constraints especially on time, and to spend tens of hours researching the article again, also considering the time I had spent a few years ago, is simply out of the question. So I merely suggest to you to consider the philosophy of "if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself." The comment about IRC was mostly in light of what was said in the edit summaries, but what I had said above was out of line. I apologize, and I have struck the offending part of my comment. Maxim_(talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This, along with a handful of other issues,

What issues? Please be specific!

such as an oddly structured meteorological history with mentions of impact and several poorly worded paragraphs

Please provide some actionable criticisms. What paragraphs are poorly worded; what is it that you don't like in the wording? How would you structure the meteorological history?

I don't think the random bits of impact (deaths, rainfall, etc.) are appropriate for the meteorological history. The last paragraph largely covers rainfall, damage, and deaths in Canada, which is highly redundant with the impact section later on. An example of awkward wording, immediately from the start of the MH: "Sufficiently organized to be deemed a hurricane, the original hurricane hunter wind measurement of 110 km/h (70 mph) soon increased to 160 km/h (100 mph) at the centre, with a forward speed of 16 km/h (10 mph)." Overall strange, but the major qualm is that this implies the "original" (?) hurricane hunter wind measurement was what was deemed to be sufficiently organized with a forward speed of 16 km/h, not the actual tropical system. Auree ^★★ 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

lead me to believe a FAR is appropriate.

Here is the link for FAR: WP:FAR. Maxim_(talk) 21:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of specifics in the section above. And for what it's worth, I haven't been on IRC for several hours. I had no idea this discussion was going to happen, but I completely agree with the sentiment. "On its way to Canada, it affected several more states" - this basically sums up my personal frustration with the article and the Canadian bias, and the US coverage is pretty scant in the lede. There shouldn't be bias in general in the article - it should just plainly state the facts. There is already a Canadian sub-article, anyway. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote a bit of the lead. I haven't worked in further details about other countries as you had requested, but I hope that what I've fixed is a good start. I think it would be good if you and anyone else interested would actually make edits. I promise I won't go crazy and start reverting stuff on sight. :) If I have strong objections, I'll voice them here. I support adding content, but I'm not overly enthusiastic about culling something just because it's about Canada. Maxim_(talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for you efforts, the lead is looking much better already. I'll try my best to hunt for more sources later on, but as of now I'm short on time. Auree ^★★ 22:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Just throwing this out...If there seems to be a lack of info outside Canada, why not search for more to add? I haven't done any research myself but maybe the bias is the result of not enough research into areas outside Canada. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you're interested in improving the article, you can help with the research. That said, I'm skeptical of how you'll be able to flesh out the sections that might be deficient, simply because I've put effort into addressing these concerns for several years now. Perhaps your research efforts might prove more fruitful. As for me, I feel I've done a good job of researching the article, and I would of course appreciate assistance in locating, receiving, and working with sources that I may have missed or otherwise not able to access or find. Maxim_(talk) 21:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Either one of two things IMO should be done. The first is add more non-Canada impact, the second is to trim down on Canada. I'm sorry but this article is very Canadain bias. You may argue that it got a lot of coverage there, hence why their is a sub-article. However, the majority of deaths/damage was not from Canada; therefore, Canada should not have nearly as much coverage. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Coverage is not proportional only to how many people were killed by a natural disaster. Maxim_(talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am one of the ones that has been on IRC while this has been going on, however i do not feel that we we do not need to go for an FAR quite yet, without the main editors who are complaining about this articles FA status proving that there is more information available out there.Jason Rees (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To do

Useful sources

• From the Global Tropical/Extratropical Cyclone Atlas. (from [1] and [2])
• Preliminary Report from NOAA (very useful for the expansion/amelioration of several sections, such as the MH, PR and the US)
• Google Books sources:

• Civil Engineering and Public Works Review, Volume 51 (Snippet view) "Hurricane Hazel in 1954 passed near to Grenada, but winds on the island were limited to 45 m.p.h., although winds up to 100 m.p.h. in Carriacou caused considerable damage."
• Report on Grenada 1957 (p. 5, Snippet View) "The island of Carriacou was struck by the hurricane code-named Hazel on the night of the 25th October. Damage to property and coastal vessels, exclusive of Government property, was estimated at $80,000. A subscription list was opened in Grenada and closed at the end of the year after collecting $3,860 from local donors."
• Stokes, Barbara F. very descripte of how the hurricane happened in the US
• Hairr, John lots of impact for the Carolinas, describes Hazel as the greatest hurricane to hit North Carolina in the century.

Problematic areas

• Lead needs to be re-written to be a more complete summary
• Dodgy wording in Meteorological history
• Off-topic details in Meteorological history
• Add more about non-Canada impact/aftermath

Comments

Feel free to add to the lists. Maxim_(talk) 22:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA to-do list

With Hazel set to be today's featured article on October 5 and the sub-par state of the article...it's community collaboration time, team! This has already been discussed off-wiki but now I'm dragging you all into actually working on it. Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, 12george1, TropicalAnalystwx13, Jason Rees, TheAustinMan, Hylian Auree. I've outlined a general plan of attack to whip this article into shape, but feel free to add more bullet points on specifics for what needs to be done.

Major issues

• Lacking comprehensiveness for Caribbean and United States
• Slight Canadian bias throughout.

Lead

• Needs to be rewritten to include the met. history, preps, and put less weight on Canada.

Meteorological history (Hink)

• Needs to be rewritten to properly incorporate HURDAT reanalysis
• Search for journal articles that may be of use
• Remove impact details from this section

Preparations (Julian)

• Only the basic details outside of Canada are present
• Need to recheck the preliminary report for warning details and such to be certain information is correct
• Search newspapers.com for relevant details

Impact

• Caribbean (Hylian Auree)
  • There has to be more information available on Puerto Rico given this statement: "Puerto Rico suffered its worst flooding since 1899 as a result of the hurricane." More info can certainly be gleamed from the Monthly Weather Review
  • @Hylian Auree: if you can work your source magic to find Spanish sources covering Puerto Rico and Cuba that would be greatly appreciated.
  • Double check for Haiti information given the high death toll (not holding my breath on this one, though).
• Search newspapers.com for relevant details
• United States
  • Double check all currently cited sources for additional information that can be added.
  • Search newspapers.com for relevant details
  • Search for possible environmental papers
• Canada
  • Trim to three paragraphs

Aftermath

• Caribbean
  • Search newspapers.com for relevant details
  • Look for any possible papers about procedures that changed
• United States
  • Search newspapers.com for relevant details
  • Search for possible papers on post-storm effects (such as trauma, procedure changes, government policy, etc.)
• Canada
  • Trim to two or three paragraphs

Citations (Hylian Auree)

• Need to be cleaned up to meet FA standards

Hope you're all eager to help out so we can keep showing the best side of WPTC on the main page! ;) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, the MH is done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Strengty discepancy

The text account of the strength of Hazel north of the Carolinas certainly seems to differ from the Saffir-Simpson path depicted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:B1F5:E682:9FA1:E088 (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)