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
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
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.
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.
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.
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. Runningonbrains18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Only thing really missing is the impact section. This storm caused $5b in damages; I know there is more info here. Jdorje21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 ici14:12, 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 ici04:46, 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
"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.
"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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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 ici18:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
