Talk:Galveston Hurricane of 1900

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Galveston Hurricane of 1900 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2005.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a September 8 selected anniversary.

---

Contents 1 From Wikipedia:Peer review 2 Worst natural Disaster? 3 History channel video? 4 Total damages 5 Katrina 6 Name of the article 7 Mismatching velocities 8 More Impact 9 Lack of references 10 Importance 11 Article structure 12 Source of storm intensity? 13 Rebuilding

[edit] From Wikipedia:Peer review

I massively expanded this article on the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, and no one else has touched it since. I'd just like someone to look it over and make sure I didn't screw it up. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It says, "This was considered to be an exaggeration." By whom was it considered an exaggeration?

Great job! From the few History Channel and TLC programs I've seen about this event, I would have to say that this article covers all the basics well. If your intention is to put this through FAC, I think the article is ready for that. --mav

I don't know about FAC. It's just an important event and it was worrying me that nobody had so much as found a typo to fix. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh ya. I'd say you could remove the stub message and please add whatever references you used on this article in a ==References== section. Adding a ==Further reading== section would also be nice. --mav

I mistakenly left the stub message in at first (it was initially a stub), then I intentionally left it to see if anyone was paying attention :)

As far as references go, sources were either online or from memory. The three listed in External links form the bulk of the material. However, the local university library has a small pile of books on the subject, including Isaac's Storm and Isaac Cline's autobiography and some reprints of material from 1900. I'm just afraid that if I check them out, I'm going to end up writing even more on this depressing subject. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Headline text

Writing more would honor those who died. If you used the external links as references, then standard practice would be to have (also used as a reference) behind them. If all the info on the extranally-linked websites is already in the Wikipedia article, then move them into a ==References== section. Again, good work. --mav

One of the latest edits introduced some errors. Specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Great_Galveston_Hurricane&diff=5314745&oldid=5279182

Merged badly with the second paragraph in the Destruction section. Cut and paste errors methinks, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Otherwise I like what I see and can't think of much else it needs so far. - Taxman 22:54, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops. I think I just got distracted and scrolled up to work on something else. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised you removed this from PR. I think it is a pretty good article now. A few more copyedits (eg removing inline comments) and I think it is ready for FAC. - Taxman 14:50, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I wanted to let it sit and simmer for a while, and the PR page was getting fairly large, anyway. It's going to be the middle of next week before I can get to the library to check my spelling on those quotes against the source. I'm also working on getting stubs in for the red links. There were just too many links that went nowhere (that should have gone somewhere) for me. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Worst natural Disaster?

HI. This seems to be a contradiction, or at least I don't get it:

"The number most cited in official reports is 8,000, giving the storm the third-highest number of casualties of any Atlantic hurricane, after the Great Hurricane of 1780, and 1998's Hurricane Mitch. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is to date the deadliest natural disaster to strike the United States."

How can it be the deadliest natural disaster if it had less casualties than other storms? Am I missing something? --DanielCD 18:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that Atlantic hurricanes hit countries other than the United States. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh. That's true. Thanks. --DanielCD 19:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, casualties might just have been injured, not necessarily killed. 66.92.237.111 04:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's just the geography for the other two storms. The 1780 hurricane hit Barbados and neighbors, while Mitch hit Honduras and adjacent countries. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Made some edits; many just style and wording. Really nice article; very thorough. --DanielCD 20:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have I not been following the news closely? I think the Katrina death toll numbers are off by a few factors of 10: "In contrast, through September 21, 2005, Hurricane Katrina's death toll is 15,564 and growing."

That would be vandalism...which anything Katrina-related is prone to. Jdorje 22:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History channel video?

I just saw a video on the History Channel (I'm pretty sure) on this hurricane a few weeks ago. Someone might feel like digging it up and linking to it at the bottom. --Oreckel 13:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too, that's why I requested it for the main page. I'm finding the link now. --brian0918™ 13:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I missed this, I was "out" for a while, and didn't think to check this talk page when I got back. The video in question is most likely the History Channel's documentary version of the book Isaac's Storm, already referenced. But now I know who to blame for ruining my plan to request it for the Main Page on June 1, first day of the Atlantic hurricane season. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Total damages

The info box states that total damages were $30 million (1900 dollars) or $36 billion (2003 dollars). I'm not sure I really understand this -- surely it doesn't mean to imply that a dollar in 1900 had the purchasing power that one thousand, two hundred dollars would today?! I don't know offhand but I'd assume that a 1900 dollar is more equivalent to 10 or 20 of today's dollars.

I think they're using something like the righthand column in this reference [1], which is "population, wealth, and inflation adjusted", versus the left, which is inflation adjusted only. It looks like that table is from a paper based on the same research listed here, whose methods are explained here. The wealth adjustment makes sense to me, but the population adjustment seems a bit sketchy still. — Laura Scudder | Talk 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The population-adjusted value is the NHC's estimate of what damage an identical hurricane would do if it struck today. I think they used it to try to get through to public policy makers that a hurricane that struck in exactly the right place could potentially do upwards of $100 billion dollars in damages (but I guess they failed). It's a pretty interesting figure to throw into an article, but you certainly can't claim that's how much damage the storm did. Jdorje 22:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katrina

We gotta mark this page... i have a feeling that Hurricane Katrina will knock this into 4th hardest hitting hurricane. --Dragontamer 01:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name of the article

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake article is named with the year appearing before the city. Should this one be renamed with the same format (1900 Galveston Hurricane) or viceversa (San Francisco earthquake of 1906)? --xDCDx 08:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The current title was chosen over "1900 Galveston Hurricane" based on its wider use on the internet. Likewise, "1906 San Francisco earthquake" is more popular than the other wording. Don't let the inconsistency get to you, it's not important. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about other areas. Around Beaumont, you can refer to it as "The 1900 Storm" and pretty much everyone will know what you are talking about. Could we include that name in the article?

[edit] Mismatching velocities

The text says winds topped at 135mph. The chart on the right says 150mph. Needs to be cleared up.

It was 135 at landfall, (at least) 150 in the open water. (I think it might have been a Category 5 in the open Gulf but there is nothing to back it up) CrazyC83 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Impact

I know the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 impactd places other than Galveston so this article needs mention impact in Caribbean, Cuba, Louisiana, rest of Texas, Ohio Valley, New England and Atlantic Canada. Probably we need to have a Effect of Galevston Hurricane by region sub page like we did with the Hurricane Katrina article. Storm05 20:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We do not need to have a sub page. But we do need to mention damage elsewhere, if only to say that the storm caused little damage (I have no idea how much damage was caused in Cuba and the midwest). I'd also be in favor of a structuring to a storm history + preparations + impact + aftermath sections as has become common for just about every other TC article (currently there is little information about storm history or the hurricane's formation). — jdorje (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a subpage is unnecessary, but I kinda like the it as is, a historic narrative. The problem with applying a structure designed for modern hurricanes is that we have completely different sorts of information on modern hurricanes compared to this one. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I originally thought that too, but after applying it to 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, and 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane I no longer see a problem. The only extra information this article has is background (the current "The city" section), which could maybe go into a separate "Background" section. — jdorje (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of references

The lack of any inline references is a major problem for this article. I don't think it's appropriate for a FA to not have inline references. The ref/reference format is in place; can some of the original authors go back through and add the references into the text? — jdorje (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going through the listed online references and trying to identify facts, but I don't have any of the paper references and rather doubt my local library would have them. So I'll have to leave that to the original authors. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find online references to complement the paper references, that would be ideal. — jdorje (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've gotten all the big facts used out of the listed references. I'll take a look around for some more as there's still lots of facts calling out for citation. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I think this one is a High; ~10000 deaths and a billion in 2000 USD damages is very notable to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I did too until I compared it to an article like History, or even History of the United States, or Texas. It's a big scale when you think about it that way. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, but I'm looking at it in terms of what the importance scale actually says:

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another.

From that I think it is a high-importance tropical cyclone but in terms of another topic (History of the US, say) it is likely to be lower.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean now. I didn't realize that rating was in the context of the tropical cyclones project. Then I'd definitely say it's high importance. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Upper echelon of High. If the storm hit today and killed 8,000, with the gold mine of information that would come out, the article would look a lot like that of Hurricane Katrina and would likely be Top-class if it had the same tragic and traumatic impacts. CrazyC83 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article structure

This article doesn't seem to follow the structure outlines for tropical cyclone articles. It has a very odd structure. But I'm not sure how to properly organize it without losing information. Can anybody fix the problem? íslenska hurikein #12_(samtal) 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of trying to fit round pegs into square holes for consistency's sake. I think it works find as structured now. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source of storm intensity?

"The highest measured wind speed was 100 mph (160 km/h) just after 6 p.m., but the Weather Bureau's anemometer was blown off the building shortly after that measurement."

If the anemometer was blown off then how can it be said that the storm that hit Galveston was a Category 4 storm? Reub2000 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The winds were estimated to be at least 120 mph later, so NOAA follows that estimate:

The greatest velocity for five minutes was 84 miles per hour at 6:15 p.m. With two minutes at the rate of 100 miles per hour. The anemometer blew away at this time, and it is estimated that prior to 8 p.m. the wind attained a velocity of at least 120 miles per hour.^[2]

Titoxd^(?!?) 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuilding

Does anyone know how long it took to rebuild the city? That'd be a great addition to the article. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)