Talk:Hurricane Janet

Todo

More impact. Jdorje 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Also storm history, preps, and aftermath, if possible. Sources would be nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] - I saw this bit while researching Diane. It turns out the British Honduras government had a rebuilding program after Janet. Not sure if that's been mentioned yet. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Monster

Interpreting the best-track data, this was a monster storm! The 914 mbar record, already one of the strongest measurements in the basin, was from when the hurricane was at 155 mph winds. On the next visit, the hurricane hunter plane was lost. There is no way to know how strong this hurricane really was. — jdorje (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably didn't get much stronger, because on the next flight that didn't crash, it was at least 10 mph weaker. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Reducing to stub. There isn't much here. --Coredesat talk. o_O 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor Janet

She was once the most intense on record, and she just got booted from the top ten. Mention that she was the most intense added to the article. —Verrai 06:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

She was never the most intense on record, though the MWR does make some impressive claims (tied for 3rd lowest land pressure ever recorded worldwide, behind the Labor Day storm and an unnamed Philippines tc) which I added to the article (though the MWR should not be taken as fact). The actual numbers are impressive enough: no accurate pressure measurements were ever taken at sea, the only semi-accurate measurement was the 914 mbar measurement from Chetumal (which is not actually on the coast) after landfall. From the MWR I get the impression that none of the hurricane hunter planes were ever able to find the eye of the storm, with the possible exception of the one that was lost. — jdorje (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Tampico flood of 1955

In an effort to narrow down the number of deaths to a single number, I made a little table of deaths by region. And it don't add up. The 538 number is pretty clearly just the Barbados plus Quintana Roo deaths, ignoring elsewhere. The 681 number is a little trickier, but is pretty close to the number of deaths recorded throughout most of the storm's path - I suspect there must be another 5 or 10 deaths on one of the Caribbean islands to make this total up properly. Interestingly though neither total is even close if you include the deaths from the Veracruz landfall. Hurricanecity claims 300 deaths in Tampico (which isn't even in veracruz) from the storm, but without any primary sources given this is pretty sketchy. In fact the MWR barely makes mention of the veracruz landfall, with just a sentence claiming that the resulting flooding in Tampico was "one of the greatest natural disasters ever to occur in [Mexico]". Continuing to dig, I found this interesting little story, telling about the flood (rainy year+Gladys+Hilda+Janet) and how the entirety of Tampico was underwater; that page claims 10,000-12,000 deaths were caused by the flooding (and thus, caused by Janet, a la Hurricane Floyd or Hurricane Diane which had similar styles of cumulative rainfall). For now I continue to look...but ultimately, my question is: what do we do to this and other articles if supporting background is found that Janet did indeed cause 10-12 thousand deaths? Perhaps this would be one to email the NHC and ask them about. — jdorje (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The NHC storm reports online don't go back to 1955, which probably means they don't have more extensive records than what you see in HURDAT, the Monthly Weather Review article, and their Deadlist/Costliest document from 1996. You can ask NHC, they likely deserve a head's up, but they may not know any more than you do. Thegreatdr 11:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC

I'm starting to think nobody knows. I found a US government document listing all disasters since 1900; it listed 0 deaths for the catastrophic tampico floods of 1955. Meanwhile all the newspapers of the time claim that it was the worst disaster in mexico's history (Tampico, population 110,000, was completely underwater and cut off from the mainland) and that the death toll mounted "hourly" as the days progressed. The end-of-season report by Gordon Dunn (which I haven't been able to find) is quoted in several newspapers, saying "For the second consecutive year all records were broken for hurricane destruction" and "a conservative estimate of hurricane casualties is 1518 but probably many more than that number died in Mexico alone from hurricane-induced floods." All this lends credence to the one source giving 10-12 thousand deaths but I suspect all the authentic sources are going to be in Spanish. — jdorje (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me e-mail Eric. He maintains the costliest, most damaging document that was released this year. I managed to get Audrey's death toll increased based upon a book published in 1997 by sending the scanned pages over to NHC. My guess is, though, we'll need a published book source (that includes an actual list of the dead), possibly by an official Mexican government source, if the number is ever going to be changed for NHC purposes. Thegreatdr 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

A mexican government source would be nice. And while you're at it, ask how the MWR adds up to 681 deaths. By my count (reflected now in the article) it totals to 687+ even if you boil the mainland deaths down into just the "+". Maybe 1 and 7 look very similar? — jdorje (talk) 07:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.asiestampico.com.mx/articulos_19552.htm
• http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=10376
• http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/humanitarian.htm
• http://www.bordeninstitute.army.mil/published_volumes/mpmVol1/PM1ch4.pdf
• http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=82575506_clean&firstvisit=true&src=search&currentResult=0&currentPage=0

Deaths

The figure of 681 deaths for Janet is attributed to the MWR (the 538 value comes from an internal set of NHC "unpublished notes" which I choose to ignore). All values seem accurate enough except for the 500 for Quintana Roo which is an estimate. Stangely though the total does not add up to 681: it totals to 687. And either way deaths from Veracruz and Tamaulipas are not included. If anyone notices something I might have missed from the MWR (an added 5 deaths somewhere would add up, if the NHC isn't counting the 11 lost hurricane hunters in the total), please add it. — jdorje (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One quick thing- I don't like how Hurricanecity is used for the deaths in Tamaulipas. The newspaper archive should probably be able to help, seeing as the MWR doesn't list everything. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Deaths in Tamaulipas and Veracruz are basically unknown from what I can see - the number 300 given by hurricanecity is suspiciously similar to the 300 that MWR gives for Hilda deaths in Tamaulipas, while hurricanecity claims 200 deaths from hilda for some reason. The only other source I can find claims 10-12 thousand deaths, but I do not consider that reliable. Newspapers from the time may also be unreliable, however, but at least they're primary sources. What newspaper archive do you suggest? Do you know of a particular online site that's freely accessible? — jdorje (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You bet. Click here Hurricanehink (talk) 03:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's some interesting reading. I wonder if the flooding ("the worst flood in the country's history" according to one aggrandized newspaper article) deserves a separate article. From what I've read tampico was already largely underwater from Hilda when Janet came along...then the floods from Janet not only submerged the rest of the city but completely cut it off from the mainland. Government and international aid came quickly with the Mexican and US military moving in within a day or three to evacuate people in boats and airdrop supplies with helicoptors. I still see no useful information on a death toll but it will be extremely difficult to separate Hilda and Janet here. And wherever the information goes, it should make for a very informational "aftermath" section. — jdorje (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

/me goes digging in ProQuest, see you in a couple days and I will have stuff from the NYT, some very useful in fact. Problem is its not publically viewable and I'm not really in the mood to add info myself. Suppose I could download and email to interested parties (I've found a dozen stories relating to Tampico area and a good deal more on Janet itself.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Image

I'd swear this page once had a great damage photo. Maybe it was deleted. I've found them again here. Unfortunately, I think they're copyrighted. But I'm almost sure they got these images from a public domain source, though. I just don't know where. We sould at least have a media section that gives a link to these photos, they are powerful. The destruction is absolute. I would be so disappointed if we can't find them in the public domain somewhere. (Other pics here, same site, need to scroll down a bit.) -- §HurricaneERICarchive 01:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 20:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's redundant to say "hurricane season" twice in the first two sentences. I know they link to different places, but I don't see the need.

Changed to "1955." TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Now it's redundant having two "1955"'s in a sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed to 'year.' And there are no 'year's in the lead. :) TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The intense hurricane made landfall at that intensity near Chetumal, Mexico on September 28, weakening over the Yucatán Peninsula before moving into the Bay of Campeche, where it slightly strengthened before making its final landfall near Veracruz on September 29." - way too long. Please split this (I'd suggest cutting after "September 28", since that's a pretty important clause).

Split the sentence up, reworded some things. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Janet quickly weakened over Mexico's mountainous terrain, before dissipating on September 30." - no need for comma

Removed comma. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In its early developmental stages" - redundancy there. I'd cut "early"

Cut. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• The first sentence in the second lede paragraph says "Lesser Antilles" twice. Find a way to remove one of them.

Changed to 'island chain.' TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You now have "island chain" twice in the same sentence. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Rearrange wording. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "While in the central Caribbean Sea, a reconnaissance aircraft which flew into the storm was lost; all eleven crew members perished." - something isn't quite right here. In the first clause (in the central Carib), are you referring to Janet or the aircraft? Also, don't use "which", use "that", but even so, I think the sentence would read better if you said "...aircraft flew into the storm and was lost, with all eleven crew members believed perished." Something like that.

Reworded to recommended wording.

• "A Category 5 upon landfall on the Yucatán Peninsula, Janet caused severe devastation in areas on the peninsula and British Honduras." - don't say "peninsula" twice. Either use "Quintana Roo", or eastern Mexico, or something.

Changed to Quintana Roo, linked. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You have Quintana Roo linked twice in the lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Delinked the second one. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "worsening effects caused by Hurricanes Gladys and Hilda earlier in the year" - I'd say "earlier in the month", since all three were in September '55.

Changed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The floods left thousands of people stranded." - any info about damage from Janet's last landfall?

Talked about number of deaths, largest US relief operation in Mexico. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Janet's landfall as a Category 5 hurricane on the Yucatán Peninsula marked the first recorded instance that a storm of such intensity in the Atlantic basin made on a continental mainland, with all previous storms making landfall as Category 5 hurricanes on islands." - that's a pretty bold statement to just source it to the best track. Do you have a better source?

Sourced NCDC's "Category 5 MONSTERS!" website. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "A total of at least" - just say "At least"

Cut. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)}

That's it through the lede. I'll continue my review later, but feel free to address these. Just respond below each comment when you're done with them, please. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Finished the recommended fixes in the lead. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 22:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• "becoming a tropical storm by 1800 UTC" - there is no indication of the date in that or the previous sentence.

Added "September 21." TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• " The disturbance organized, becoming a tropical storm by 1800 UTC while located 350 mi (565 km) east-southeast of Martinique,[6][7] and as a result was tropical storm was named Janet by the Weather Bureau, the tenth named storm of the year" - can't you shorten this?

Cut the sentence into two, after 'Martinque' TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "By September 21 the storm system already attained winds of 60 mph (95 km/h). " - comma after "September 21", and when you use phrases like "by X date", you should say "had already attained".

Changed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "At the time gale force winds extended up to 75 mi (120 km/h) away" - why "up to"?

Removed the two words. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The small hurricane continued to rapidly intensify as it moved westward across the Windward Islands." - this is the first indication of Janet being a hurricane, and the construction is similar to "Janet quickly intensified as it moved to the west", only three sentences earlier.

Talked about that it did intensify to a hurricane, and proceeded to rapidly intensify. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "On September 22, Janet intensified from a tropical storm to a Category 3 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 120 mph (195 km/h) in just six hours" - that is false. The best track hasn't been analyzed for that time period, and since the 06 intensity was the same as the 00 intensity, it might not have intensified so crazily in six hours. I'd change to - "by X time, Janet already attained winds of [blank]"

Changed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Shortly after 1700 UTC that day" - never start a paragraph like this. You should almost always reiterate the date when starting a new paragraph

Indicated the date. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "After passing through the islands of Grenada and Carriacou the following morning" - at this point in the paragraph, you haven't yet indicated the date. Not good. Also, it's ambiguous whether it struck both islands, or if it passed between them.

Listed the date, said that it passed between the islands. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "a U.S. Navy reconnaissance plane that entered the hurricane early on September 24 reported a lack of organization, including an indiscernible center of circulation and weak rainbands" - you can cut this down. Give it a shot.

Gave it a shot. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "After a reconnaissance flight reported much strong winds then initially suggested" - "stronger"? Also, "than"

Fixed my misspellings. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "All warnings in the Windward Antilles remained in affect until 1000 UTC the next day." - what date?

Added date. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "advisories warned areas in British Honduras and Quintana Roo" - about what?

"Hurricane-related impacts" TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Janet passed south of Barbados on September 22, becoming the first hurricane to strike the island" - so passing south of an island constitutes a strike? That'd make sense if it was "passed just south"

Added just. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Did you have to link " dwellings "? Ditto homeless

Delinked. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• " killing another 122 people" - I don't get the "another"

Removed 'another.' TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "An airport on Grenada was covered in debris strewn by the strong winds caused by the hurricane." - goes on a bit much.

Cut the 'caused by the hurricane' part. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "St.George's" - not sure if it's my computer, but I think you need a space there.

Added space, and no, it's not your computer. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "but it is unknown how many were never found" - never, or ever?

Never ever never. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Much of Santa Elena, Belize was also flattened by the strong winds - Belize isn't in Quintana Roo

Moved it elsewhere. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is up through "Quintana Roo". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "To a lesser extent, the hurricane also somewhat effected" - redundancy there, and it's "affected"

Changed affected. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Like in Corozal and Orange Walk Districts" - "Like" isn't the best word here.

Changed to similar to... TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "strong waves caused by Janet sunk the shrimp boat Celestino Arias after suffering engine failures" - technically the wording means "strong waves sunk... after suffering engine failures." You should add something

Changed the wording in general. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Natula" - typo

Took a while for me to see what was the right spelling :) TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "According to some sources, 800 people died from the floods, with thousands more being stranded in the city." - this is several sentences after the Tampico damage. Try re-ordering.

Re-ordered back. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Relief work on Barbados helped " - should that be "workers"?

Er.... TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "due to the food and water shortage" - don't need to link

Delinked. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Conversions from British Pounds to United States Dollars were done using the currency converter here, with an exchange date of September 29, 1955" - you shouldn't say "here". Instead, make it ref (cite web), and say the website you used.

Cited. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• "It is not expected to be used for another Atlantic hurricane." - retired means it won't be used again.

Removed. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 02:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

All in all, good job! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for the review!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Janet. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.barbadosadvocate.com/newsitem.asp?more=local&NewsID=12859
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203051752/http://www.emdat.be/search-details-disaster-list to http://www.emdat.be/search-details-disaster-list
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402171906/http://www.meteo.an/Include/Climate2/documents/HurricanesandTropicalStorms.pdf to http://www.meteo.an/Include/Climate2/documents/HurricanesandTropicalStorms.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Janet. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110516220440/http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news/saint_lucia/article_1289.php to http://www.cdera.org/cunews/news/saint_lucia/article_1289.php

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)