Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/1896 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

1896 Atlantic hurricane season edit

3 articles

For consideration to become a good topic: a high-quality, complete, and relatively straightforward set of articles concerning the Atlantic hurricane season of 1896. The two well-documented storms of the season have standalone articles, while the rest are discussed within the season article. Note that although Tropical Storm Seven – which doesn't have its own article – was highly destructive, it struck an impoverished and remote island, and information about it is consequently scarce. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as one of the GA reviewers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Enough detailed articles for the season.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - If 5 can have an article, then 2 should have one too. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nergaal: All of the notable info available for Hurricane Two is in the season article. Whilst I would love to have written standalone articles for each and every storm in the season, the sparse meteorological records of the 19th century don't allow us that luxury. I think you'll agree that splitting two paragraphs off into its own page would be pointless, especially since the season article is acceptably short as it is. It would be nice to do a little research or consult involved editors before opposing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure info from back then is sparse, but same way you found info for 5 you should be able to get info for 2 also. Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just told you that information doesn't exist. In the US, Hurricane Two had a much lighter impact in a much smaller area than Five, and only a few precious nuggets of info are available from Puerto Rico. I consulted my fairly comprehensive library of weather books, along with three newspaper archives and all the other sources I've compiled from 10 years of writing tropical cyclone articles, and could not find anywhere near enough on the storm to support its own page. It would be a permanent stub. I think you'll find that you're objecting to the balance of historical records and not to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nergaal, do you have any outstanding concerns? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well written and comprehensive. No issues from what I can see. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the reviewer of two out of the three articles. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support small topic, but hits the marks from a quality standpoint. MPJ-DK 00:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 03:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]