Talk:Hurricane Andrew

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Hurricane Andrew was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: January 25, 2007
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Natural disasters during the week starting 20 February 2006.

Contents

[edit] Comarative storm intensities

From Hurricane Andrew

Andrew was only the third Category five hurricane to hit the United States, the previous ones being Hurricane Camille, which hit Mississippi and Louisiana in August 1969, and the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, which struck the Florida Keys in September 1935.

But from 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane

The Fort Lauderdale Hurricane (or Pompano Beach Hurricane or Forgotten Hurricane) was an intense category 5 hurricane that affected Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi in September of 1947.

Was this an oversight, or is there some error? --zandperl 05:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Does it say 1947 struck at Cat 5? No. Only three storms have struck AT Cat 5. Hurricanes Ivan, Hugo, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma were Cat 5s, but didn't strike the U.S. at that intentisy. --Golbez 07:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Illegal aliens in the U.S. are not included in the official count."

I find that hard to believe. Any citations? --24.107.227.12 22:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The article history shows that the first mention of illegal aliens was on April 1, 2004 at 02:46 GMT by Pollinator. Lets proceed by giving him a chance to defend his position before making a decision to remove that sentence. --24.107.227.12 23:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to change the current statement, which is presented as fact and implies that the government (or some official report) simply ignored deaths that actually happened. In fact, Andrew spawned many urban legends, including that hundreds of even thousands of migrant workers were killed and the deaths covered up or, even less believably, not noticed. Extensive investigations, including one by the Miami Herald, discounted these rumors. DavidH 03:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

In 1994, I have heard the information from people who were purportedly taken to the farmlands near the edge of the Everglades -- supposedly firsthand -- but since I couldn't find anything to back up the information they gave me, I did not report it in the article... but lack of information does not preclude the possibility. The article claims that "An investigation by the Miami Herald found no basis for such rumors." Does the source of this quotation have a citation for the source? Perhaps DavidH can help in this as he indicates in this discussion "Extensive investigations, including one by the Miami Herald, discounted these rumors."

Unfortunately, I did not get the names of the doctors with whom I had the discussion or the bus driver who ferried them to the south Florida farmlands, but confronted with three firsthand accounts, however questionable they might be, one would like to see evidence to the contrary. B.Wind 10:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot prove anything, so will not argue about what should be on the page, but I do believe that some undocumented alien deaths were not recorded, and that the number of deaths were higher than the official counts. I base this on the fact that I was there shortly after the storm and remained there for several months. -That I talked personally with many victim families among the "undocumented" and there were family members that were not accounted for. It is possible that some left the area, but it seems reasonable to also expect that families will tend to find each other. -That I talked with a police officer who told me that he helped carry out bodies from the Everglades Camp, and that "hundreds" were removed. I saw that camp; the destruction was awful, and I had little trouble believing the officer. I am not one who gets carried away with rumors, and some of the stories I've heard have GOT to be exaggerations. But the existence of some false stories does not equate to all stories being false. To see at first hand the devastation that occurred forces the conclusion that the official death count IS lower than the real one. Pollinator 20:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing of Homestead Air Force Base

If I recall correctly, Homestead Air Force Base was slated for closing before Hurricane Andrew. (The current article states that the damage caused by the hurricane led to the closing.) Does anybody have any source information for this? — Fingers-of-Pyrex 18:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, like many facilities, it was being considered for closure or downscaling under the Base Realignment review process -- but I don't remember it being a done deal. The hurricane pretty much sealed it though -- the AF decided not to spend how ever many millions it was going to take to get it back to full status, so it was inactive for a while, then reactivated with some repairs made for use as reserve base. I don't have access to a news archive that could give us the definite answer on what its status was on the day of the storm. I did know a base information officer at the time but have lost touch with him. Any clarification you can provide would help. Maybe it would be more accurate now to say the storm knocked the base out of operation, and it wasn't restored to active status until when it became a reserve base. DavidH 01:30, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
The only "source" I have is my own fallible memory, but for what it's worth, I do remember being in that area the following spring and talking with park rangers in the Everglades, who stated that no one knew at that time what the actual highest recorded winds during the storm were, as even the instruments at the AF base were destroyed. I believe it was during last year's most interesting hurricane season that some military documents were de-classified and the official statistics on the storm were updated to reflect newly available information about the strength of the storm.
Salty Kid | talk 06:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I was there in late July 1992 and it was in full operation. My parents took us there to see the Coral Castle. Never been back but I hope that castle survived it.71.28.243.246 20:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I found this in The Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1995 [1]:

Originally a commercial airfield, the property was deeded to the Federal government after the United States entered World War II. Homestead AFB operated as a military airfield, training pilots until 1945, when it was deactivated and transferred to the local county to be used once again as a commercial airfield. Emerging national security interests in the Caribbean and Central America prompted the reactivation of Homestead AFB in 1955. The installation operated until 1992, when Hurricane Andrew rendered inoperable 97 percent of installation facilities. In 1993, Homestead AFB was designated for base closure, primarily because the cost to close the base was low when measured against the high cost of reconstruction. In its aftermath, the hurricane left new environmental concerns and areas of potential contamination that must be addressed before the installation property can be transferred to the community.

Before the hurricane, the scope of the environmental restoration program at Homestead AFB consisted of 29 potentially contaminated sites, all linked to past operations. The installation was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1990, due in large part to the installation's sensitive ecological setting near Biscayne Bay and the Everglades National Park.

Site investigation activities conducted after Hurricane Andrew and the environmental baseline survey, required under DoD Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) policy, identified more than 500 new sites or areas of concern. Many of the sites were contaminated with paints, solvents, oils, and other industrial hazardous materials blown from storage areas and scattered throughout the installation by the high winds of the hurricane. Other areas of concern included floor drains, oil water separators, and asbestos materials inside storm-damaged buildings.

During base closure, each of these areas would have been reviewed and possibly considered for further investigation and cleanup in the course of normal assessment activities. However, the destruction caused by Hurricane Andrew not only increased the magnitude of potential problems at each of these sites, it also created new areas of concern. Ninety-seven percent of Homestead AFB's facilities were rendered inoperable by the force of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, just months prior to the BRAC Commission's recommendation to realign the base. B.Wind 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Because the base closure process was a long, contentious one, Homestead Air Force Base was under Department of Defense consideration for closure prior to its being struck by Andrew; because of environmental concerns and other factors, the BRAC Commission decided that it would have been more cost effective to close the base and clean up the mess rather than restore it. In 1994, according the same annual report to Congress cited above, the local redevelopment authority recommended that Homestead Air Force Base be converted to a civilian aviation facility with continued government and military use. Subsequently, one-third of the installation was transferred to the Air Force Reserve to form the new Homestead Air Force Reserve Base. B.Wind 21:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Only Three Category 5 Storms?

I'm going to check out the references on the statement that Andrew was one of only three category five hurricanes during the 20th century. I could be wrong, but I was almost certain that Carla in 1961 was a category 5 storm? Has me curious now... Salty Kid | talk 06:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

A simple enough fact to check; read Hurricane Carla. It was a Category 5 storm at peak intensity, but it dropped to 4 before striking the US. Only three storms have hit the US at Category 5, Andrew, Camille, and Labor Day. --Golbez 12:59, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
Also not that Andrew was Category 5 when it made landfall. Other Category storms may have been exclude because they were not at 5 when they made land fall. (Like Katrina, for example) TomStar81 05:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes Tom. Next time don't go to my talk page and put a rather pointed comment there, just talk to me at the Andrew page. Life's to short to even get alittle stressed aboutt his stuff. No hard feelings though. Thanks.Gator1 12:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Worse Than Government Admits

Hurricane Andrew Much Worse Than the Government Admits

I heard several years ago on a radio talk program and interview with Katie Frankenvich (not sure of spelling). She was there, and barely lived through it. The program was on internet radio (rense.com).

Some background on Katie first:

Katie Frankenvich is a documentary film producer who was living in Homestead, Florida with her son at the time. Her father was the former president of Columbia Pictures.

From what I recall, she said that the Coast Guard’s wind gauge broke off that was near her home. This gauge, she claimed could record winds of 250mph, thus making it more than a category 5 store.

Storms like this are not natural in Nature, but more about that later.

She talked about the destruction to her trailer home, and her and her son’s ordeal. She went into the fact that the TV said it would not go to where it went—when they knew darn well it would. How did she know this, because a neighbor who worked for the weather bureau said it would, and said that the TV station was holding back the info. However, she told her to leave NOW, as he was doing.

Why didn’t Katie leave?

Because she was waiting for her son to return from work. Her son tried to get off work, but his boss told him to stay. Then it was too late when he did arrive home.

Why? I don’t know.

She also said that with the first officials who came to view the damage after the storm, including the police, they did not stop to help her, though she was bleeding. Katie saw dead bodies everywhere.

If you look to see how much damage was done, and the total destruction of thousands of homes, it would be impossible for the death rate to be that low (going by government figures).

Katie also saw mass secret burials of bodies, the burial crew putting them in a mass grave.

I figure one way to find the truth as to how many really died is (which might be too late now), to have a web site put up and the public posting people they know who lived there, but never saw again. You can be sure it would be much more than what the feds say died (which I don’t remember the number, but it must be recorded somewhere).

The government admits that it can control the weather, so could this be something that got out of hand?

As a side note, I heard from one guy who was in the military at the time, and worked on a secret project in the storm hit area. The operation of that was called, “Project Tic Tock” (the work is in the name).

That’s how I see it.

Richard S

I can make things up too, but I don't think that makes them true. Thanks for putting this here, though, and not in the article itself. --Golbez 16:12, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The account has too many holes. For example, Andrew had landfall near dawn on August 24, 1992; if the account with her son were accurate, he would have worked the graveyard shift... and hurricane warnings were up the previous morning. It is most highly unlikely that unless the son were emergency personnel, the boss would be there (or even on the telephone) after midnight.

Trailer homes were evacuated a day earlier, when Andrew was still over the Bahamas.

If she were still bleeding when the "first officials" saw her, she would have bled to death. Florida south of Kendall was impassable by road for several days; in fact, officials (including the National Guard) didn't allow anybody south of State Route 94 for two days after landfall -- and then only residents for a short time afterward.

The Federal government never claimed that it could control the weather; in fact, it has stated repeatedly just the opposite. Hurricane Andrew is evidence of this lack of ability.

"Katie also saw mass secret burials of bodies"? This statement is absurd on many levels, not the least of which is the timing, given the lack of access to equipment, why she would be allowed to see such a "secret" of the government, and the south Florida terrain (in which the bedrock is usually mere inches below the surface of the soil). 66.217.34.168 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, she left out the part about Martians landing at the height of the storm to evacuate their undercover agents from MetroZoo.
Please don't add any of this kind of nonsense to the article. DavidH 17:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comparisons with Katrina

How can Katrina be costlier already? The money certainly hasn't been spent yet and surely the costs of Katrina are only wild estimates. OTOH I am going to make an edit re 4th most intense. crandles 14:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Estimates. I agree that we shouldn't leap to conclusions, but the moment the first insurance claims come in (and total losses have traditionally been calculated as insured claims times two), I have no doubt it will surpass Andrew. --Golbez 16:27, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I am less inclined to edit this out again now. However we have a silly range of statements on destructive power from "most destructive ever" to "until 2005 the second most detructive ever". The 98Bn for the Great Miami Hurricane is silly; that article states

"The toll for the storm was $100 million in 1926 dollars, just over $1 billion in 2005 dollars. It is estimated that if it had hit in the year 2003, with modern development and prices, the storm would have caused over $98 billion in damage". The modern development wasn't there so it wasn't damaged.

Can we agree on "was the most destructive to hit the United States probably until 2005"?

See. This has been discussed before. I wish people would come here before making changes in order to see what has been discused. It's very annoying. I think Katrina should be menitoned, but this article is about Andrew let's just keep that in mind. katrian will likely surpass it and when it does we cna change it to that it is sthe seocnd most costliest hurricane. But any real detaisl on Katrina re for the Katrina page not the Andrew page. I just think some people arte treatign this like some sick contest of whose worse Andrew or Katrina. Andrew was and will continue to be (hopefully) one of the costliest natural disasters. Even when katrian surpasses it, Anrew will still be "one of" the worst storms. Let's just try and focus on the subject of the article. All I'm saying.Gator1 21:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be far better to wait with the comparisons with Katrina until after the end of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. A little time will put some perspective that is sorely needed here. Regarding the question "Can we agree on....?" my answer is "no." Regardless of Katrina and/or Rita, the description is wordy, unwieldy, and speculative: it is better to state something to the effect that in 1992 Andrew surpassed hurricane Agnes' former record of being the most expensive hurricane in US history, and then follow up at the end of the year with (it is now ranked.... behind....). B.Wind 23:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! YES! Here here!Gator1 23:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Rita's having a lower central pressure than Katrina bolsters my contention that the changing of Andrew's standing should wait until the hurricane season is finished. B.Wind 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


I was the Reserve Fighter Wing's logistics plans officer at Homestead AFB prior to Andrew. I and about 250 other Air Force Reservists were deployed to Italy just weeks before the hurricane made its landfall. The Air Force returned many of us back to Dade County about 3 days after Aug 24. Debris was everywhere, trees were stripped of leaves, no power, a minimal amount of useable roads. I was there on-scene for the next few months. No government cover-up, no mass graves, no aliens bodies (from Latin America or from beyond our solar system)being piled into trucks. The problems we dealt with were real, natural, and out-in-the open. Sorry to disenchant anyone who "knows somebody who saw something." D. Chapman

[edit] "Dramatisation?"

There was a made-for-TV movie based on the events of this hurricane. Despite it being quite a poor effort, a mention of it might not be inappropriate. See also http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108393/ MrPC 05:02, 22 September 2005 (GMT+10)

Saw it....horrible...inaccurate....made for TV movies are made out of just about anything, is this any different? I don't think it deserves mention. Just my OP though.Gator1 19:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How strong was andrew?

Andrew is probably the most-analysed hurricane in history. But the data the NHC gives out is sometimes conflicting. For instance the NHC best-track data (Image:Andrew 1992 track.png) shows Andrew having winds of 175 mph at one point, but also shows it making landfall as a Category 4. The older NHC pages (like [2]) still call Andrew a Category 4 storm; I guess they haven't been updated after the re-analysis (but this page is still the first source listed for the article). The re-analysis press release [3] says Andrew was a Cat5 during and before landfall. Meanwhile several authors I've seen have claimed Andrew was a Cat5 at landfall only.

On the surface, the question is: what should the article say? 145 mph? 165 mph? 175 mph?

However, the deeper question for me is: what does this mean for all other hurricanes? It's "well known" that older hurricanes have their wind speed overestimated, but nobody ever says how old or how much. According to [4] the NHC in 1992 thought that surface wind speed was 75% of flight-level wind speed, and around 1997 they realized they were wrong and (for cat5 hurricanes) the surface speed is 90% of flight-level wind speed. So what does this mean about Hurricane Allen, for instance? Do its wind speeds need to be adjusted upward from 190 mph (based on 75%) to 230 mph (based on 90%)? Surely not. It seems more likely that for older hurricanes like Allen and Camille, the listed windspeed is actually the flight-level speed not the surface speed. That would give these hurricanes surface speeds of 175 mph rather than 190 mph, which makes a lot of sense since all three intense hurricanes of 2005 only had top wind speeds of 175 mph.

It's important to remember that almost all hurricane wind speeds are estimates. They may be estimates based on flight-level winds, or on dropsondes in the eyewall, but rarely (for dropsondes *directly* in the eyewall?) are they exact. Maybe in the future with aerosondes they will be more precise. In the meantime, the question is one of consistency. Even in the NHC best-track data, it seems, older hurricanes always have higher windspeeds than modern hurricanes with the same pressure. Someday soon the best-track data will probably be updated and those old windspeeds lowered...and what will we do then? Will we go back and correct all the old articles? Even now the best-track data (which is, I believe, a research product and not the official data) is not used for some storms (like Hazel and Beulah...and Andrew).

The real question is, what is the *authentic* source for hurricane wind speeds?

Jdorje 08:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


Maybe email the NHC (I found the CPHC to be very open to emails) and ask. --Golbez 18:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But still, why does the track say that Andrew was a Cat. 4 at landfall when we know it was a Cat. 5? Fableheroesguild 04:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Because the track was made at the time, and not 13 years later? I don't know, as I said, ASK THEM. --Golbez 06:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
No, the track is made from the best-track data, which is supposedly the same data that lead to the reclassification as a cat5. But yes, the only way to find out is to ask them. Jdorje 07:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Answer

I think [5] answers all questions.

  1. Andrew was a cat5 with 175 mph winds out in the open ocean.
  2. Andrew weakened to cat4 while crossing the bahamas.
  3. Andrew briefly regained cat5 status, with 165 mph winds at landfall. However this doesn't show up in the best-track info because the best-track is given at 6-hour intervals.

I will update the article accordingly. Jdorje 04:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not the article I care about. It's the storm track. Fableheroesguild 20:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

And this answers that. Jdorje 20:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so what you're saying is that because Andrew was a Cat 4 in during the advisories, we can't adjust the track to say it was a Cat 5 during that advisory. Fableheroesguild 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is made from the best-track data which is given at 6 hour intervals. I'm just explaining why the best-track incorrectly seems to indicate it was a cat4. Jdorje 10:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

I put this as Start-Class, even though it is a good article with lots of information, because the standards have to be a little higher for a hurricane like Andrew. Todo: more information on impact, including more pictures - maybe wind field distributions, separation of the impact into multiple sub-sections, possibly an aftermath section, a separate section in the storm history about the re-analysis. Jdorje 20:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess Start is way too harsh, although everything I said above still holds. At least it has inline references...though it needs more sources (I think most text comes from the TCR). Jdorje 20:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

"Additionally, Berwick, Louisiana, reported 96 mph (154 km/h) sustained winds with gusts to 120 mph (193 km/h)." (Did this occur at its second landfall?) I'm pretty confused at translating this information into Spanish, I know you could give me a hand juan andrés 05:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's from the second landfall in Louisiana. Jdorje 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
The point being that Andrew was still quite strong in its second landfall. Even if it had missed Florida entirely it would probably still have been retired. Jdorje 05:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rising vandalism

This page was always subject to vandalism but it seems to be on the rise. Since March 26, there have been 27 changes and only 1 of them is a legit change (the rest are vandalisms or reversions). — jdorje (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

We could semi-protect for a while, removing anons and new users. That helped out a lot over at Columbine High School massacre, the page a few months back had at least 15 vandalism per day, it was semi-protected for over a month and went down to a few per week after the protection was lifted (until yesterday because of the 7th anniversary, but that's expected). Still, the vandalism on this page is very sparse, coming about every few days... and other than that vandal that keeps removing the same few sentences, it seems to be random. We could just stick to reverting, warning, and blocking repeat offenders unless it starts becoming a real nuisance. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 19:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Todo

More anything, I added more in the impact section and I predict that this article will be like the Hurricane Katrina article in the near future. Storm05 15:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure where to write this, but the graph showing Katrina as the 3rd most powerful storm is incorrect. See NHC data. It should be changed, but I am uncomfortable changing it. Katrina was a Category 3 storm at landfall.

No the graph is correct. Katrina had much weaker winds than Andrew that is true. However, the strength of a storm isn't related to its windspeeds but its pressure. Katrina was 920mb at landfall, lower than Andrews 922.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree but isn't the language misleading though. Shouldn't there be a talk about what intensity means The SS scale is the standard measure of intensity though not perfectly correlated with pressure. \

Central pressure is the definitive measure of strength. Pobbie Rarr 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Central pressure is NOT the definitive measure of strength for a hurricane. The entire point of the SS scale was to classify hurricanes accoring to sustained wind speeds, which correlate with their potential for destruction. It is the wind, not the pressure, that destroys homes and flattens landscapes. The SS scale is the most accurate classification of a hurricane's kinetic energy. Relying on pressure measurements would be tantamount to classifying strenght by the amount of rainfall, or forward speed, or storm diameter, or any other feature of storms. Atmospheric pressure is not energy and therefore could never be used as a gague of strength. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.213.5 (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The bahamas impact section needs expanding from what I can tell. Also, more preperation. I will try to get to that when I get the chance. -- Juliancolton (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Collaboration

This is now the GA collaboration and heres what the bot says we need to do:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 50 miles, use 50 miles, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 50 miles.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Specifically, an example is 17 ft.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
  • Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 13 additive terms, a bit too much.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please provide citations for all of the {{fact|nested=yes}}s.
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work.

I also sent the article for a wikiproject assessment which can be found by clicking the link in the template above. Tarret 22:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics and Most intense US hurricanes table

The hurrican Katrina data in the Most intense US hurricanes template is not included in the main citation for that table. I added the ref to the template, but due to technical issues it won't display in the ref section of the Andrew article. The talk page for the template is different than the main template page. I highly recommend that someone remove this template and replace it with a more functional infobox or just make an html table for the article itself. Alan.ca 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Or Rita. The actual most intense hurricane on record.--Loodog 05:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Wilma is the strongest Atlantic hurricane on record. Titoxd(?!?) 05:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisted

The article doesn't have nearly enough info for such an important event, and lots of places are unsourced. For those reasons, among others, I delisted it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Its absurdly bloated and useless and misnamed "statistics" section also really needs to go. — jdorje (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] most intense table - Hurricane Dean?

Hi. Apparently, hurricane Dean in 2007 made landfall at 906 mbar. Can someone verify this? If it is, then it is the 2nd in the table. Please correct it. Look for a source and add it to the table. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 17:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The table in the article is most intense landfalling U.S. hurricanes. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew by far has been one of the most devastating hurricanes ever to reach Earth!!! I mean it was just horrific how much damage this huricane caused!!!!! But, did you know, that Tampa Bay FL. has never been hit by a hurricane in 81 years?! If I were someone that could really give some help in time of crisis like Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And my last question, why do these hurricanes have such nice names? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.90.184 (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A note

I want to say something about this article. User:Thingg sent me a thing about making a bad edit. Well it wasn't me. There must be 2 people with the same address. --72.86.140.122 (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)