Talk:Hurricane Gilbert

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 4, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 13, 2012	Good article nominee	Not listed
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 16, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that 1988's Hurricane Gilbert* was the first to make landfall on Jamaica since 1955?*
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 13, 2013, and September 13, 2018.

Caribbean: Jamaica / Cayman Islands High‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Jamaica portal This article is supported by WikiProject Jamaica (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Cayman Islands work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Mexico High‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance).
	This article has been previously selected as the Weather Collaboration of the Fortnight.

Lowest pressure?

The gilbert article puts its lowest pressure at 888, claiming to be the lowest in the western hemisphere. But the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 claims its pressure is the lowest in the western hemisphere (see the discussion page there). Where does this data come from? Jdorje 22:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Labor Day storm's article was in error and has recently been revised. You check any reliable source and they will tell you Gilbert had the record lowest pressure for the Western Hemisphere.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's just an error of wording pretty much. The labor day storm was and still is the most intense storm at landfall recorded in the western hemisphere. Runningonbrains 18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

That satellie picture of Gilbert in the mid-section of the article is outstanding. It should be put in the infobox and the track relegated to another section of the article.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Only thing really missing is the impact section. This storm caused $5b in damages; I know there is more info here. Jdorje 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added more info to the article. Storm05 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your spelling. — jdorje (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to expand the article further, there is a lot of good information in the Tropical Cyclone Report.

Deaths

It's strange that the # of mexico deaths is taken not from the TCR but from some spanish-language source. Should be changed I suppose. — jdorje (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example if you were there that thing happened would you die????? Harmony msutu (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image

This is a truer version of the infobox image. The current one has been distorted by cropping. I think it should be replaced by the HSEI image. Any objections? -- §Hurricane E RICarchive 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the infobox one is the truer one, as it was the original image. The one you mentioned was distorted by brightening it a bit, as well as adding the caption and country lines (which is a bit distracting, IMO). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Useful links:

More to come. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica section expanded

I have greatly expanded the Jamaica impact section. Shall this be upped to a C? Jeffrey Gu (Talk to Jeffrey Gu | Edits | Sandbox) 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since B (its highest class at the moment by the TX project) is a better class than C, no. All the classes should reflect B, if one project has deemed the article B worthy. However, it may be time to make a GAN run with this article. You game? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

The first time many people nationally heard about Accuweather is when they issued a hurricane watch for Texas. They were apparently sued over this issuance. I don't know if any references can be found to this event, but it captured media attention while Gilbert was moving through the Gulf of Mexico. There is some seriously overwikilinking in this article. Is the TC project still wikilinking place names at every occurrence? Wikipedia policy is for no geographic location wikilinking. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a search through the news archives i have access to but they have nothing on Accuweather hurricane watch for texas though there seemed to be something for another system. Anyway imo you have to have some geographic linking as otherwise whos gonna know where Niue, Texas or watever is, but major places eg the US, dont need linking off.Jason Rees (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've removed second occasions of wikilinks, which is the general wikipedia standard, geographic location or not. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is severely lacking

Since I've already started to help out I can't really review this article for GAN. However, as evidence of what I've been able to add already, this article is severely lacking in information. There is a plethora of sources available for use that are not implemented. Many areas affected by the storm were not mentioned outside the deaths and damage table, most notibly Haiti. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and doing further research on the storm, utilizing journal articles and more newspaper sources. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this means this article cannot meet the GA Criteria at this time? J G ^{(edits · sandbox)} 21:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, it can't. It's not comprehensive enough. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting there. Give him/us time. No one has even reviewed the article yet, and there are no shortage of helpers. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

e

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I don't even know where to start to some degree. There are massive glaring issues with this article. Let's start at the fact that we have no source consistency whatsoever. You have dates running around in different formats (2010-10-10 or October 10, 2010). Consistency is key in this, because you can only have one or the other, not an and/or situation. Second, there are |accessdate= missing in several citations, including, but not all of: 2, 5, 11, 27, 28 and so on. To bonus this, there is absolutely no formatting consistency, citations 2, 24, 37 are still a bare link and title. Next we have no consistency in Tropical Cyclone Report/Preliminary Report titling. There are titles all over the place and utterly confusing in this department. This is just citations alone in the references section, I haven't even gotten to the usage of them.

"This pressure was the lowest ever observed in the Western Hemisphere and made Gilbert the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record, until it was surpassed by Hurricane Wilma in 2005." – Do we have a citation for this? "Gilbert restrengthened rapidly, however, and made landfall for a final time as a Category 3 hurricane near La Pesca, Tamaulipas, on September 16." – Wash, Rinse, Repeat. A good portion of the Meteorological History is cited by the Preliminary Report only, with some others wedged in there. The meteorological history in general is lacking in information. The storm lasted 11 days, and this is 1988. Who recorded the lower pressure? Recon? Satellites? I see a lot more options for expansion here than has been given. Next, there had to be more preparations, evacuations, stuff like that in Texas. No Category 4 comes barreling into Texas without preparations. Where did the storm make landfall, this isn't even in the meteorological history. The fact that you don't mention landfall but mention the fact that the 29 tornadoes were spawned comes as a major red flag.

The largest portion of the problems is by far, in the largest section. The impact has citations missing in several evident places. There are not supposed to be spaces between a period and citations in sentences. "About 45 people died." – Where? The Jamaica and Eastern Caribbean probably have a lot more expansion then you might believe. Next, why do the Cayman Islands and Central America have their own sections? Unless you can expand these, I'd argue merging the two into different sections. A good portion of the damage was in Mexico, yet the section is aptly pathetic. The Jamaica and E. Caribbean ones look much better than it. The overhaul here is needed, badly. "Two ore more were killer tornadoes.[37]" – I've never seen anyone on Wikipedia misspell "or". Also, do we have an exact number? It seems utterly stupid that we have no number. Where did they occur, etc. I'm not asking to list every tornado, but the killer ones should have some say. Finally, no Aftermath section? I have to picture the destruction had a lot of aid sent to Mexico. Go look this up.

Overall, the article....needs work. The stuff I gave is just a glancing run, and if I've got almost 4 paragraphs of responses, I can make it easy and tell you that I am failing this article. It's been a long time since I've failed an article, and this is my 2nd out of 2 so far. Normally, I'd give some leniency, but the amount of problems present in this article cannot be handled in 7 days. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 00:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. What a review. No assumption of good faith, eh? Your citation format is quite relevant as a concern. It's not good, either for the project or wikipedia, that this review became a rant. After my edit earlier today, I'm fairly sure that the article is clear about recon being the source of the lowest pressure reading. We're not going to get increased membership in the project if this kind of attitude pervades it. Check out the latest signpost article on why this review is an example of what is wrong with wikipedia, and why some of us are withdrawing from its participation. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier to let the truth be given now, rather than rubber-stamp it and run to FAC where it would get crucified. I'd rather have a detailed rationale for failure over stuff like Talk:Delaware Route 36, where the guy rubber-stamped a failure. I don't call this a rant, I call this outlining the massive problems with this article. It's just, this article in particular, is in need of a review like this. I'm not trying to drive away editors as you claim, I'm trying to say it the way it is. If you don't like it, just ask for another review. Nothing's stopping you. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 02:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't submit the article for GAN. There was an editor involved who was trying to improve the article, and I was trying to be encouraging, figuring the editor would do the relevant work before its submission. Truth within reviews is fine...but keep the review focused on the facts, not opinions. You can give a review without comments like "I don't know where to start", "I don't get the reason why it was nominated", and "overall the article sucks". Those type of comments are wikipedia's main problem. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers me that I'm willing to have a review like this, with the editor giving his opinion and giving the facts. Your issues is a by-product of society. Anyway, I've removed them for now. I'm not happy with your response to this and I'll state it like that. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 03:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I think Mitch's review of the article is, albeit somewhat blunt and overstated, accurate. The article is not terrible, but it definitely needs a fair amount of work to attain GA status. I'd rather have reviewers like he than people who pass the article after barely having given it an in-depth look and overseeing glaring problems. The notion that Mitch should "keep the review focused on the facts, not opinions" is somewhat fallacious, as a GA review in itself is, to an extent, the reviewer's own interpretation of the criteria that should be satisfied -- something that Mitch was patently doing. In any case, the review was premature, and I think I too, as well as any editor with reasonable knowledge of the criteria would have failed the article for these reasons. Although Mitch, I must admit that you need to watch your wording--saying things like "the article sucks" can come across as condescending and demotivate other editors. Auree ^★★ 04:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lingering issues

Per the GAN review, there were issues. I did what I could with the referencing and retrieved by dates. It turns out that three of the references were the same, so they've been merged. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and I've also thought of an aftermath section following this link: [1] J G ^{(edits · sandbox)} 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is getting there, but is still a ways away, in particular with the impact section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have started a newer, longer aftermath section. J G ^{(edits · sandbox)} 00:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improved article

Over the past few days, I have been expanding and fixing issues in the article. Should this be A-class? J G ^{(edits · sandbox)} 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait for the GA review to pass. Although A-class isn't inherently better than a GA, I think in this case there should be more peer reviewing. There is too little info for the US, given $80 million in damage. Mexico is likewise really short for over $1 billion in damage. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's wait for the GA review/more feedback before trying for A or FA class. One step at a time. The further you go up the wikipedia ladder when it comes to article quality, the longer each step takes. It looks like Hink gave some input in his response which could be used to improve the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Gilbert/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Keilana (talk · contribs) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm reviewing your article today, but it may take me until the weekend to post it because I review on paper and then type reviews up. Please be patient, I promise there will be a good review on the other end. I look forward to reading your work! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To curious folk: I have reviewed the article and am waiting for a response from Jeffrey regarding copyediting. I'm not being lazy, I promise! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, since Jeffrey seems to be inactive, here's what I've done. I've done an extensive copyedit on the article, and I'm failing the article; however, I'm going to leave preliminary comments here and if anyone from the project (or really anyone) wants to take them on, I'd be pleased to pass the article once everything's taken care of. Sound good? Keilana|^{Parlez ici}

Lead

"It is the second most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin behind only Hurricane Wilma of the extremely active 2005 Atlantic hurricane season." is awkward.
- Reworded to It was the most intense hurricane ever observed in the Atlantic basin, until Hurricane Wilma surpassed it during 2005.
Does "later that day" refer to September 13?
"over the course of its path" is awkward.

Meteorological history

Is the whole first paragraph cited to source #2?
"classified it as the twelfth tropical depression of the annual hurricane season using the Dvorak technique" and "toward the west-northwest" are awkward.
"it gained enough strength to be designated as Tropical Storm Gilbert" is clunky.
Is there a better word instead of "emerging" in "emerging from the coast of Jamaica"? This puts amusing images in my head.
Is "extreme intensification" a scientific term?
"having intensified by 72 mbar in a space of 24 hours" is weird.
The sentence beginning "Gilbert made landfall for a second time on the island of Cozumel" is the longest sentence ever.
"making it the first Category 5 to make landfall" is repetitive.

Preparations

"alongside a hurricane watch for the Barahona Peninsula" is awkward.
"and the southern coast of Cuba east of Cabo Cruz" is awkward.
Why isn't the stuff about Haiti with the stuff about the Dominican Republic?
The last paragraph of this is very choppy.

Impact

In the table, do the sources say damage estimates for Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua are unknown? Or are there no sources for these countries?
The total damage in the prose could do with a citation.
Why was it not later confirmed that Gilbert was the costliest Atlantic hurricane? Is there a source that talks about this?

Eastern Caribbean and Venezuela

Specify the country for Hewanorra Int'l Airport.
What nationality were the six fishermen who went missing in the Lesser Antilles?
Are there sources for the US Virgin Islands and British Virgin Islands stuff?
Specify where the damage was estimated at $3 million.
The 'sentence' "A combined and confirmed death toll of seven dead from the Dominican Republic and Venezeula" needs a rewrite. At the very least, it needs a verb. Those are nice.

Hispaniola

How long was the blackout in Santo Domingo?
Is there a more specific estimate for loss in the Dominican Republic?
It needs a more specific location for where in the south the casualties were. This also needs a citation.
Were any other locations damaged by waves?

Jamaica

The sentence "About 45 people died" needs to be specific (shouldn't be hard to figure out *exactly* how many died) and better integrated, as it's choppy.
The bit about mudslides needs more specificity and a rewrite. The phrase "reported to be fine" is unencyclopedic, I feel.
Specify when and why no planes were flying in or out of Kingston.
The caption for the destroyed buildings needs a location, if possible.
Is there an official estimate/count for how many died?
Who estimated property damage and was there an official estimate? This also needs a citation.
Is there a source for the 100,000 houses destroyed?

Cayman Islands

The storm surge thing needs to be cited.
It needs a more specific estimate of the losses in the Cayman Islands, if possible.

Central America and Mexico

The Honduras information needs a citation.
Also, is there an estimate for monetary damage in Honduras?
Is there more detail on Belize?
Were 35,000 left homeless in the Yucatan, or in Mexico as a whole?
Is there a more accurate estimate of damage than a 1 billion dollar range?
The paragraph beginning "As Gilbert lashed" is choppy and needs work.
Is there a more accurate number than "more than 60 people" for the Mexico death toll?
The bus thing needs clarification.
The sentence "Among these were a paramedic and a pregnant woman who died when a Mexican Red Cross ambulance fell into a flooded arroyo near Los Chorros after a bridge collapsed." is awkward.
How many tornadoes did it spawn?

United States

What is a killer tornado and is that necessary to have in the article?
Is "major disaster" a specific governmental term? Also, who declared the disaster, and was it in response to the tornadoes, storm surge, or both?

Aftermath

Specify in what way it is the "worst" hurricane - in terms of death toll? Some other metric?
"Gilbert was the worst hurricane in the history of Jamaica and the most destructive tropical cyclone on record to strike Mexico." needs a citation.

Records

How many hPa is 888 mb?
- 888 hPa.Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which were the three other storms that surpassed it in the wettest-known storms list?

Thanks to whoever decides to pick this up. If and when you take care of all of these issues, just leave me a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath phrasing

The destruction in Jamaica was so heavy that Lovindeer, one of the country's leading dance hall DJs, released a single called Wild Gilbert a few days after the storm.

I don't know how to correctly put it in words, but I feel the way it's written is not the best one, since as it currently says: "It was so heavy that someone made a single".

As it stands, the implication is that Gilbert strength was large enough to warrant a DJ making a single. An odd phrasing since the hurricane strength is independent of anyone making a single or not. Magister Mathematicae (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor English prose

It seems most of these weather-related entries are done in a very poor English prose style. You can cram as much information in here as you wish, but unless the writing flows, it is not of much use. I find this one almost unreadable. (I would help, but have sworn off editing science articles.) I can provide examples and corrections. Antimatter33 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the prose is not up to par, please, feel free to edit the article -- Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia after all. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in this case, but as for other articles, no. Sure, WPTC articles are technical, but that's why we wikilink them. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancun

I was in Cancun during Gilbert. I don't think 5000 American tourists were evacuated "from Cancun". What this probably refers to is that a certain number (5000?) of tourists were evacuated in a systematic manner from the Tourist Zone (Hotel Zone) to downtown Cancun. After the hurricane hit, the airport was closed for two or three days. It was bedlam at the airport, as tourists were impatient about not being able to fly out of Cancun. But again, "evacuation" from the airport was done systematically, starting with tourists who had the earliest scheduled flights out, and airlines cooperated in flying tourists out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp3lly (talk • contribs) 06:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Hurricane Gilbert. 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) 22:59, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image (new discussion)

Is this image: File:Hurricane Gilbert Sep 13 1988 2001Z.jpg of better quality than this image: File:Gilbert 13 sept 1988 2117Z.jpg? The former image has these lines running through it, and despite being in real color, it was taken before peak intensity, whereas the latter image was taken very near peak intensity. --Undescribed (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]