Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Frederic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Todo

[edit]

The content and structure are certainly enough to qualify as B-class, but there are some parts that need to be addressed. For instance, was it a cat3 or a cat4 storm? Winds are *never* clocked at 132 mph. Why does the intro note the uncertainty in damages (all storms have this uncertainty)? Is the quoted section actually a quote? Jdorje

Frederic was a Cat. 3 at landfall [1]. This article could be vastly improved using the NHC archive alone. I've improved the intro & storm history. Pobbie Rarr 19:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comments

[edit]

I see someone put it at B class. Sorry, but I disagree. First, there's no inline sources. Second, it's very stubby in places. A B class article, in my opinion at least, should have a few sentences on every aspect of the hurricane. The are no inland effects mentioned, nor is there any mention of its effects in Puerto Rico. It's pretty close, but not quite enough for B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My experience reading the article mirrored the B-class description:
Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
So if I were to reassess the article, I'd still give it a B. —Rob (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I feel a casual reader should be introduced to the main parts of the storm. Also, how can it be useful if it is incorrect? We don't know, unless there are some sort of inline sources. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Landfall intensity

[edit]

I know that the silly Deadliest Costliest table says "Category 3" but I have found no other source that says that. In fact, the preliminary report and the MWR (which are almost verbatum copies) says that flight level winds just before landfall were nearly Category 5 force (138 knots) [2]. Using the standard reduction ratio of 0.9, that comes to 125 knots at the surface. The same recon plane reported a 946 mbar pressure, down from 950 six hours earlier and Dauphin Island Sea Lab reported an "unofficial" reading of 943 mbar. 135 mph seems to be a conservative landfall estimate rather than an aggressive one. The real intensity was probably around 140 mph. And the damage reflects that. No information I have found indicates that Frederic weakened before landfall. The Best Track certainly doesn't (given, the Best Track does have a few errors in it; hence the more extensive research). -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be. But remember, no original research in these articles per wikipedia guidelines. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Frederic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One link went to an Oops site, so it was removed. It was an archived video from WKRG (call numbers may not be accurate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpsingleton1 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Frederic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hurricane Frederic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page has questionable damage listings

[edit]

A lot of stronger references indicate the storm caused from $2.2 billion to just below $3 billion (the 1979 USD), rather than the $1.77 that's indicated with the Wikipedia page on the storm. Reliable sources showing the real damage exist; they, however, haven't been listed on the page here on the enwiki. Can anyone get real proof to establish this? Angela Kate Maureen (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tropical Storm Angela: It appears that the $1.7 Billion for the US was taken from the NHC's costliest TC list.Jason Rees (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Frederic&oldid=1210964105"