Template:Hurricane

National Register of Historic Places Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Florida B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Florida. If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.FloridaWikipedia:WikiProject FloridaTemplate:WikiProject FloridaFlorida articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Great Labor Day storm of 1935 also destroyed the City of Tampa Bay, which is something this whole article skips over. The focus is to much on the keys and not of the event itself. I fell that if the author wants to pay tribute to the toll it took on the keys then he should make a seperate article about it.

The Labor Day storm while it did not directly smack into Tampa, it did come close enough to lay waste to the entire area, and even sunk 2 islands off of Treasure Island in the Pinellas County region of the bay. This is just as much a piece of Tampa history as it is Key West history, and this information needs to be added, until this article is updated the entire story is flawed.

Be bold. Add the information you want to see in the article. DavidH (talk)

It says in this article:

. . . the central pressure was unofficially measured as low as 26.35 inches of mercury (892 hPa). This measurement of barometric pressure was lower than in the other two category 5 hurricanes, Camille and Andrew, and a record for the Western Hemisphere.

But it says in the Hurricane Gilbert article:

Gilbert also reached a minimum pressure of 888 millibars, the lowest pressure on record in the western hemisphere.

Is this article trying to say that the Labor Day hurricane set a record for lowest barometric pressure in the western hemisphere at the time (if so, that could be made clearer)? Or is the Gilbert article faulty? Or something else? --Camembert

Most sources I've seen list the labor day hurricane as the strongest (lowest pressure). But I don't necessarily believe the gilbert article is incorrect. The most reliable hurricane data comes from the NOAA which is very US-centric. Mitch isn't included in any of the lists, and although Gilbert did cross the mainland US it wasn't a very strong hurricane when it did so. Jdorje 22:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I found some NOAA data on Gilbert that confirmed the 888 number. So I added the external links to Gilbert and changed the labor-day article. Jdorje 22:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article said that the Labor Day storm had the lowest pressure? I know this to be completely false. It's pressure was the lowest of a hurricane to hit the U.S, not the lowest in the Western Hemisphere.

-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast

Interestingly, 892mb was not the lowest pressure recorded in that storm. A man on Lower Matecumbe Key recorded 26.00 inches (880 mb) a whole hour before landfall. Unfortuneatly, this could never be verified because the man was in a flooding car at the time and had more pressing matters to attend to than reading his barometer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony868 (talk • contribs)

Damn, if only that could have been verified. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making some changes after checking back on some references. In particular, Marjory Stoneman Douglas' book HURRICANE, Rinehart & Company (1958). Keys Historian Jerry Wilkinson calls it "the best account" on his Keys history website. This and other info on the Keys History Museum site contradict some of the current narrative. In particular, that the vets died on the relief train. In fact, the train never made it that far; its only passengers were 11 Keys residents it picked up on its way down to the FKRA work camp. The number of vets killed on the train in the current version is actually the total number killed, according to the coroner's report, which I cite now in the article.

One poignant detail from Hurricane is that the vets were waiting by the train platform for the evacuation train. They kept thinking they heard it coming. Never has the cliche about a storm sounding just like a train been more tragic. DavidH 01:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The article says 200 M.P.H. winds, but that can't be right. Before the re-analysis it was 160, and now, post-analysis, it is 185 M.P.H. Something isn't right.... Hurricanehink 02:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gusts have been estimated at 200 mph or higher, not sustained winds; if it's not clear it should be corrected. DavidH 16:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, where'd you get that data? As I said below the NHC's best-track (as of spring 2005) puts the storm's max winds at 140 knots. It is possible there is a higher value between data points but I doubt it. Jdorje 07:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The latest best track data (which still has not received the 2006 updates) still puts the max winds at 140 knots, 160 mph. Anything else is speculation at this point. — jdorje (talk) 18:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yea, here's the link. It's a ppt file, it's official, and it says the winds were raised. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It also upgrades the final landfall in Mainland Florida to 125kt. Pobbie Rarr 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the submission of the probable new Best Track. The slide 50 says "This research will be evaluated by the Best Track Change Committee for final acceptance of revisions to HURDAT." Therefore it hasn't been officially included into HURDAT yet. Patience people its not official yet, but it can be quoted as a likely change.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean the 160kt is unofficial too? Pobbie Rarr 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that source isn't official. The official source is the HURDAT, which as Jdorje says hasn't been updated. That can be cited to say it is likely that it will be upgraded but its as unofficial as calling 2005's Cindy a hurricane before its TCR upgraded it.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought that ppt actually was HURDAT. Pobbie Rarr 23:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a gust of up to 250 M.P.H. in Windley Key which would make it the strongest hurricane on record. The sustained winds were at least 190-210 M.P.H.

The article seems somewhat overwikified now. Don't like to see brief paragraphs with 10 or more links, it just makes it unreadable. Links directly related to the topic are good. Links to every noun in the article (palm, baseball, mural, Greenland????) are overkill. Here's a guidelines from WP links style guide:

On the other hand, do not make too many links. An article may be considered overlinked if any of the following is true:

more than 10% of the words are contained in links;

it has more links than lines;

a link is repeated within the same screen—40 lines, perhaps;

more than 10% of the links are to articles that don't exist; or

low added-value links (e.g., such as year links 1995, 1980s) are duplicated.

Comments? DavidH 16:21, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's overlinked then you should fix it (I didn't write any of this, so I don't speak for the authors). But "dense" text that says "The hurricane passed over XXX, then hit between YYY and ZZZ" probably do need links to XXX, YYY, and ZZZ because otherwise nobody will have a clue what it means. This happens because this is basically text-ifying something that should instead be shown in a picture. Jdorje 01:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I agree it's over-wikified. Words like "veterans", "railroad", and "transportation" just don't need to be linked. Jdorje 01:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At [1] is a storm-path map I created for this storm. See User:jdorje/Tracks. Jdorje 06:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME. DavidH 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NHC (s:Atlantic hurricane best track) the winds for this hurricane were 140 knots = 160 mph = 260 km/h. This is now what the article says. There is PPT source in one of the paragraphs that used to say something different (the paragraph said something different, that is), but since I can't read this source (ppt is not a common format and should not be used for online sources) I can only go with the official data. Jdorje 07:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Better intro.
• More references (and probably switch to ref/reference form).
• Maybe separate "Development and landfall" into "Storm history" and "Impact".
• Minor formatting fixes, like alternating the alignment of tables and pictures.

As discussed in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones this is potentially a FA. Jdorje 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the intro now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better. I expanded it a bit more with mention of 1935 Atlantic hurricane season and Labor Day, and removed the confusing piped link from Atlantic basin to Atlantic Ocean. I still think it's too short though. — jdorje (talk) 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a pic for the infobox. Personally, I like the aerial view of the derailed train. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and sure. — jdorje (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this for a picture? It doesn't necessarily have to be the infobox pic, but it's an interesting representation for such a historical storm. Hurricanehink 19:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated on the 14th may an annon user. After reviewing the article I have promtoed it to Good Article status. Congratulations to all the editors of this article. One minor suggestion is that the storm track be included in the info box. Gnangarra 02:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has a small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough sources, not likely to pass GA per above, and not comprehensive, I think this should be dropped to B class. Thoughts? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least down to good article status, because it's A right now. I wouldn't be aganist going down to B though. Hello32020 23:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, should be a B. íslenskur fellibylur [[Special:Emailuser/Icelandic_Hurricane #12] _(samtal) 23:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put it up for a GA review. CrazyC83 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After advice in the GA Review section, I delisted it. CrazyC83 16:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's archived here: Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 9 if any editors want to look. Homestarmy 03:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]