Talk:1921 Tampa Bay hurricane

1921 Tampa Bay hurricane has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 18, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Todo[edit]

Another one done, I hope this one gets B-Class. Storm05 16:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some general todo is fixing the spelling and grammar errors. Here's some more in depth todo.

In the intro, you say it is one of several notable hurricanes to Florida. A lot of hurricanes have hit Florida in the state's history, so that might not need to be mentioned. You also say it was the first hurricane to made landfall on Tampa Bay. Aside from being gramatically incorrect, it is unsourced. "The 1921 hurricane was also the most destructive storm of the 1921 season. The storm brushed past Cuba before hitting Tampa in mid-October, leaving $10 million dollars (1921 USD, $92 million (2005 USD) in damage." You present two different ideas. One is the track, and the other is damages. You could say "The storm took a typical path for an October Atlantic hurricane, brushing past Cuba before hitting near Tampa. The hurricane was also the most destructive storm of the season, causing around $10 million (1921 USD, $92 million (2005 USD) in damage. Also in the intro, you say there were only 3-8 evacuations, thanks to evacuations and warnings issued befrore the hurricane's landfall. There are three things wrong with that. Before is spelled wrong, you shouldn't ever use thanks (you could say due to here), and what evacuations and warnings! There's no preparations section.

The storm history should always be two paragraphs if possible. The start is a little jumbled and not well-written, IMO. Something like this, "The storm was observed on October 21 while several hundred miles southwest of Jamaica. Its origin is unknown, though it possibly developed from an extratropical storm over Panama a day earlier." could work. This way, you don't mention the Monthly Weather Review, which is not relavent to the storm, but you still recognize the uncertainty. Later on, there shouldn't be so many references to the pressure. You can mention the wind speeds, but the pressure doesn't mean as much. You should only say the lowest pressure, which is typically around the peak intensity. Add more about the storm's path, including locations along the way (it struck Cuba in the province of whatever, it passed XX miles west of Key West and continued to the northeast, it made landfall as a 1XX mph hurricane near Tarpon Springs, located XX miles south-southeast of Tampa Bay, Florida).

As I said above, you need an impact section.

Did any damage occur in the Florida Keys? You say in the aftermath section that one of the Florida Keys was nearly destroyed. That sort of thing should go in the impact section. There's no need to have so many references for the storm surge in the mainland section. Just the highest total would do. Are there any statistics on number of houses damaged, or any other damage totals? The aftermath section should be part of the impact section in this case. Overall, more everything is needed.

Also, this site from the Hurdat re-analysis has 2 pictures that could be used for the article. The site also indicates that the storm made landfall as a Category 3, and that it had a minimum central pressure of 941 mbar.

Hope that helps, and sorry, but no B class yet. Hurricanehink 21:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfotunetelly, the Monthly Weather Review does not have much of the info you explained to me. First, yes there were watches and warnings but that was only breifly stated in the Weather Rewview which makes a peparations section unessarly. Second, the review does not state how far the storm came with in hitting land all and second it does not mention any damage at all in the Florida Keys or any statics. Storm05 12:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, given how long ago the storm occured I dont think more can be added unless there is good infomation is found outside the Monthly Weather Review or a couple of internet site. and frankly, Im unable to do that since I dont know any sources that I know of outside of NOAA Reports or the Monthly Weather Review and thus I cant add anything unless someone finds more infomation that I can add. Hink, the only thing we can do is ask ether Hurricane Eric , adore or the other users if there is good infomation outside what is stated in the Monthly Weather Review. Storm05 12:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore, the site you have given me is a powerpoint presentation not formatted for Internet use which we cant use that as a source (unless it is formatted to accesed on the internet) only text sources in PDF or Abode Format can be used. Storm05 12:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, its working now. Storm05 12:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that it? You comment on the advice on I give, and you do nothing? Most of what I said you should still do. Also, you need to find the information. You can't always rely on one source, and if you do, why did you have to make the separate article? Try and do everything I said. You can find the distance totals from a track map and latitude/longitude calculator, or something. You have to do more work. Whenever a person creates an article, they should finish it, and not rely on other people to pick up the pieces. It's great that you're enthusiastic about hurricanes, but please stop with the low-quality articles. What is needed is great quality existing articles, not mediocre new articles. Calm down with the article creating, please. When you do make a new one, please make the effort to do some serious research. Yes, in the past, making an article like this was passable, but now, we expect better. Try again to do at least some of what I suggested, or consider merging it. Hurricanehink 15:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfoutunely theres no other choice, (wikipedia is not homework) the only way this article can be upgraded as passable if more than one person helps with the article because I only work with sources that I am familiar with. If there is any other sources out there that has substantal infomation then please tell me. Storm05 16:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addtion, I dont think this will be merged because of the damage it caused. I added some infomation. Storm05 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I will only do articles on storms that are Pre-1950 because most of the important storms are being ignored see 1915 Galveston Hurricane for instance. Storm05 16:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~And as for the rest of the articles, I am only doing ones that have ether 100+ deaths or 100+ damage (unless a storm have alot of infomation). Storm05 16:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Also, CALM DOWN, we are all human we cant spend half of the day on our computers typintg end on end articles so that they can be passable and this one is nearly passable. Storm05 16:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I'm just a little annoyed with your work. Most of the articles you make are only mediocre in quality, including this one. I'm sorry if I have higher standards, but I just feel that the article creator should take the time to make a decent article, be it if it is one day or one week to get it done. I also understand that Wikipedia is not homework... for me it is just a thing to do. This could still be merged, as the damage wasn't very high. Sorry if I got a little too angry there, but all you did was basically say no to my suggestions, which was just everything that I think needs to be done. I am human too, and I know that the real world often interferes with Wikipedia and vice versa, but you can't jump from article to article and expect others to clean it up. If you do, maybe you could ask someone, but you shouldn't assume it. Hurricanehink 16:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand to but i disagree with the merging part since this is an important storm at least in Florida History. Storm05 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I changed some things around and fixed what errors I can find in the article. Storm05 16:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<--- I did a copyedit, addressing the changes I suggested. All those pressure readings aren't needed. The trivia section is false. Charley struck south of the Tampa area, and the link doesn't even mention Charley. I also removed the aftermath section and placed the information elsewhere. The aftermath section is supposed to be details about the rebuilding or events following the passage of the hurricane. Actual impact shouldn't be there too much. B class is close, but the trivia section needs to be sourced or removed. Hurricanehink 21:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://www.geocities.com/pasco_cemeteries/mount_zion_cemetery.html
- In 1921 Tampa Bay hurricane on 2011-05-25 02:48:18, 410 Gone
- In 1921 Tampa Bay hurricane on 2011-06-02 03:05:06, 410 Gone

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1921 Tampa Bay hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given I'll have eight GAN's up soon, I need to get reviews going to avoid the backlog other wikiprojects suffer from.

"The Tampa Bay hurricane of 1921 (also known as the 1921 Tarpon Springs hurricane) was the most recent major hurricane to strike the Tampa Bay Area. " why past tense? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"becoming the first major hurricane to hit the area since the hurricane of 1848." "since the" to "since a" as there was more than one hurricane in general in 1848. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Four deaths occurred in Tampa, three from drowning and another after a man touched a live wire." why is "drowning" singular? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"and a minimum barometric pressure of 941 mbar (27.8 inHg).[2] " link to barometric pressure. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Forecasters at the United States Weather Bureau issued advisories for ships and oceangoing vessels and hurricane warnings for areas in western Florida stretching from Key West to Apalachicola on October 24 and October 25" why is Florida linked? And you mention "and" three times in a sentence, which probably should be broken up. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better?--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Most highways leading out of Fort Myers were left impassible due to high water." why the need for the word "left"? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I quite agree, but I'll do that anyway--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The hurricane brought a storm surge" any reason storm surge is linked below and not above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" 10–12 ft (3 to 3.5 m)" why no endash for metric units and an endash for imperial units? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"cleanup of the area commenced quickly and the land boom in the Tampa Bay region and in southern Florida continued.[29] " again watch for overlinking. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" In 1925 a new pavilion was built.[14]" missing comma. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The hurricane was the first major hurricane to strike the Tampa Bay region since 1848 hurricane" missing word here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" Another property firm, Karen Clark & Co., estimated that storm surge could inflict as much as $175 billion in damage in a worst-case scenario.[40" year? given the note at the bottom I'm suppose to assume it's 1921 USD but that's clearly not the case here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I can't find much to complain written wise, just a few minor missteps here and there. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sorry for waiting a week to do this--12george1 (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]