Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Hugo

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


Question

[edit]

Can someone verify the 3000 tornadoes? that sounds like an awfully high number.

I removed it. That is definetly false. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

I put this as a B. Nonetheless there is a lot to be done here - inline references would be a good start, with a little more on storm history, restructuring of the 3 impact sections, maybe a separate "preparations" and "aftermath" sections. Jdorje 20:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say that this is a c because someone doing a report or term of the sort might need more information like when the hurricane hit time date category before and after it hit and scale on the damage. Thus making it easier to gather such information and getting everything one would need to know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) .

Restructuring

[edit]

I restructured the article quite a bit. The new structure is much better but some of the sections need to be expanded. The one-paragraph sections should most likely be expanded rather than removed. — jdorje (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

Can we have a deaths-by-region table? http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdeadlyapp1.shtml lists it as Guadeloupe, Montserrat, South Carolina. — jdorje (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes

[edit]

Well, I might have found a source. This site says the storm had 3000 embedded tornadoes. However, the official NOAA answer to the most tornadoes from a hurricane was Ivan with 117, far less than Hugo's supposed 3000. I propose we get rid of it. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The official reports don't give a quantity to the number of tornadoes associated with Hugo and 3000 is ridiculously high; I mean thats more than 4 times the annual average for tornadoes in the US! I've found a few refs for the 3000 figure as well, but when the NWS doesn't mention give a figure in its report (interestingly they used the Fujita scale to quantify the straightline wind damage) but the implication of the text is there was a low number of tornadoes. Did you notice that site cited Hurricane Andrew? I say get rid of it or mention "the SC gov said there were 3000 tornadoes" if a good source can be found for it but also stating he was wrong.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, we should just get rid of it. There's no point in even saying the governor was wrong, as it's not particularly important to the article. Unless there was some controvery involving what he said, there's no point in even mentioning it, especially since we don't know for sure how much damage the tornadoes did, nor how many there were. Yea, the Andrew mention was interesting. It'd be good in the Andrew article. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a big difference between spawned tornadoes and embedded tornadoes. We don't even know that much about the latter phenomenon, so for all we know 3000 could be correct. Pobbie Rarr 21:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that however, the source is what a state governor said not what a meteorologist said after all. In the case of Katrina, there were 62 tornadoes spawned by Katrina. However, the area subject to F2 damaging eyewall winds comprised several counties in MS and LA, a far greater area (see the last page of the NWS report). Hurricanes don't need to spawn tornadoes to do F2 damage.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I added a couple of external links. If you review the 1994 report, most of the severe damage was attributed to microbursts, based on aerial observations of the damage patterns. It seems to be a common misconception that there are a lot of tornadoes associated with the strongest hurricane winds, which may be because it is the only frame of reference that an observer has to comprehend what is occuring. For instance, a woman quoted in the Sun Herald said of Katrina that when it came ashore she saw tornadoes all around her. Margie 20:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Images

[edit]

It's hard to tell because one of them is rotated, but aren't the two images in the article showing the storm in the exact same position? Also, the first one in the infobox is unsourced. I found the best Hugo image at this site [1], but I don't know if we can use it here. Good kitty 00:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Count

[edit]

The intro has it at 82, but all other mentions are at 76. Thanos6 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pissed off

[edit]

This is it? Really, disgusting..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.242.120 (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "pastcost" :
    • [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastcost.shtml Costliest U.S. Hurricanes 1900-2004 (unadjusted)<!-- Bot generated title -->]
    • http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastcost.shtml NHC list of costliest hurricanes

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence removed

[edit]

This sentence was tacked onto the end of the paragraph in the FEMA criticism section. I removed it because it just doesn't seem to really work there. Its sort of off topic: "However, FEMA was criticized severely in 2005 for its similarly insufficient response to Hurricane Katrina, while private relief agencies and corporations such as Wal-Mart were praised for their prompt and comprehensive response to the disaster. FEMA's relevancy was questioned in Katrina's aftermath."

The 20th Anniversary of Hurricane Hugo

[edit]

September 2009 marks the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Hugo, the very devastating storm which caused extensive damage and death through Puerto Rico, the Virgins, Leewards, South Carolina and western North Carolina. Please give insights on Hurricane Hugo, September 1989 vs 2009 and what would happen should similar hurricanes hit today.

The UWEC Class under 173.19.119.172 (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, now it's the 30th Anniversary of Hurricane Hugo Infinitive01 (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When it hit Charlotte

[edit]

I don't have a source for this handy, but I remember 65 MPH sustained winds and 89 MPH gusts (that's official, but based on the damage some places surely had worse than that). That's not even hurricane velocity! You go by sustained winds, not gusts. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and finally found confirmation of what I believed. Different sources have different wind speeds, though. I'm almost afraid to ask what The Charlotte Observer will do. Someone found a source for that Category 3 hurricane statement. It was the Observer! But not a staff writer. I contacted someone quoted in the article, since the writer had no contact information. Hopefully in a couple of months, we'll get the real story.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Charlotte at the time, it was certainly more than 54 mph sustained and there was clearly an eye. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/hugo/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.54.218 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo was a Category 1 in Charlotte. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA 42 Aircraft Incident

[edit]

I feel that the in-air emergency aboard NOAA 42 while doing a mission into the storm belongs in this article, maybe in the section along with the info about Queen Elizabeth II?

In case you have never heard of it... http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/hugo1.asp ZachofMS (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five years on, and this article still fails to mention the near loss of NOAA 42 in Hugo. I find this to be very surprising, given that the incident is quite noteworthy, especially within the meteorological community. Perhaps one of the primary article editors could consider adding this information? AJC3fromS2K (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Hugo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 17:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs)

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

[edit]
  • It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
  • It contains copyright infringements -
  • It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
  • It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -
[edit]

Prose

[edit]

Lede

[edit]

General

[edit]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Review meta comments

[edit]
I'm really sorry, I can't keep this open indefinately. The user has been active since this GAN was created (although not for the last week). It's a shame, as the article isn't in all that bad shape. Drop me a ping if you'd like me to look at a second review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subdivision for either Puerto Rico or South Carolina

[edit]
STALE
Original idea put up by a now blocked sock, also there has been no activity for at least 2 months. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both places saw category 4 effects. Article is quite long. @SMB99thx, Jasper Deng, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, I like hurricanes, KN2731, Destroyeraa, and Weatherman27: thoughts? --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that Hugo had a major impact in many places in the Caribbean, I wouldn't be opposed to creating an article like "Effects of Hurricane Hugo in the Caribbean" or something similar. There is plenty to go off of, and like before, most of the impacts were felt in that area. As for the United states, I think that we could form an article for that, for now I would wait. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat, Edits) 18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Hugo largely only affected the Carib and the US, I don't think it needs sub-articles for the Carib and the US. That would split off almost everything in the article. There are 16 paragraphs of impact covering the Caribbean, covering $3 billion worth of impacts. I don't think there should be one for the entire US, we don't tend to have those articles - ones for Hurricane Noel and Dorian got either merged or split to focus on a state. Since SC was the most heavily impacted area, it having five paragraphs of info doesn't seem too significant, compared to the 16 for the Carib. Going strictly by what would split off the most, I'd suggest a sub-article for the Caribbean. Thanks TheAustinMan for adding so much info about the Carib. It pushed the article to 150 kb, which is a bit too long. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would cut off most of the article Hurricanehink, but it needs condensing and that’s best done with carribbean impacts. I think we should at least do carribbean. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting off Carib sub-article

[edit]
SPLIT
Consensus is in favour of splitting the Caribbean into a new article ZZZ'S 02:02, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article is about 4,000 words too long. Perhaps split off the Caribbean into its own article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably should be split. 12.74.53.67 (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe it should. I also think South Carolina should be split as well. ZZZ'S 22:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the idea for that, but South Carolina only has five paragraphs, so it wouldn't be splitting much off that would have to be explained anyway. The Caribbean is 16 paragraphs. Splitting that off should resolve the size issue, but if it doesn't, we can revisit splitting SC later. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support on Caribbean; oppose (for now) on SC; per @Hurricanehink‘s reasoning. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a consensus for the Caribbean section to be split into a new article, I will begin my work on splitting it. ZZZ'S 01:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Hurricanehink and @Hurricane Clyde, the users who voted in the discussion. I have created the draft here and I invite you all to fine tune it. This discussion will now be closed. ZZZ'S 02:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Hugo&oldid=1256468690"