Talk:Hurricane Carmen

Pic

A pic for Carmen can be found here. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1974.pdf Not sure if it is copyrighted or not...Hurricanehink 23:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a NOAA site, it's not copyrighted. I converted it from pdf form and will upload it now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because it's from a NOAA site doesn't mean it's not copyrighted. NOAA has a lot of pictures "used with permission" from local counties' libraries...which are not made or owned by NOAA. See Image:Tropical_Storm_Allison.jpg as an example. Jdorje 01:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Todo

I put this as a stub because it has no info on impact. Jdorje 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Better? Hurricanehink 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Downgraded, impact sections are too short and stubby at times. CrazyC83 04:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If citations were added, this could be a B Class article. - auburnpilot talk 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

1974 Pic

ARGH! If it wasn't for the fact that GIBBS has pics on a quality of nearly absolute trash from 74, finding a pic wouldn't be too hard. But then again, barely any Carmen satellite photos exist, so I feel lucky...somewhat. Jake52 My island 13:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, good job with finding that image. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused. What "duplicate"? Far as I know, I've never seen the supposed duplicate and ever if one existed, why was it never added to the article to begin with? If there was a dup., then I'm sorry, but I never found it. And if there wasn't, why was my pic edited out? Hurricane Angel Saki-My own personal NHC 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's very weird, as it wasn't a duplicate. I left a message on the Commons talk page of the user who deleted it. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a somewhat clearer image of Hurricane Carmen on the GIBBS gallery.Supportstorm (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Hurricane Carmen nearing landfall on Louisiana.

Tropical Depression #2?

This should have at least been the third, if not the fifth, recognized TD of the season. What's the source of that statement? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

As part of an ongoing upgrade of this article, I have removed the single-line section on the storm's depiction in Forest Gump. It's an interesting piece of trivia, but I don't believe it to be relevant to the article, which should be a scientific account of the storm itself. Feel free to discuss here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, agreed. It's interesting, but it's more important in a Tropical cyclones in popular culture sort of article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 17:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, this is a very nice article. I have just a few comments:

• "the feature ignited a tropical wave in the Intertropical Convergence Zone." - what is "the feature"

• "eye feature" - this seems like artificial wording - is is common in meteorology?
  • Yeah it is - it basically refers to a cyclone eye that isnt an eye.Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• eye (cyclone) is piped twice within a couple sentences of each other, once to "eye feature" and once to "eyewall". Isn't this unnecessarily confusing to the reader?

• "the more northern of which became consolidated and organized. Moving westward, the system organized into a tropical depression" - repeat "organized"

• "Heavy fell on Hispaniola as the storm progressed westward" - rain? Except you repeat it in the next sentence: "High winds and heavy rainfall were reported there and in Cuba" - needs addressing

• "The city of Chetumal was described as a disaster" - a disaster area?

• "Since Carmen had moved ashore over marshland, it caused "far less" damage than initially feared" - don't see the point of using quotes for "far less"

• ref 2 http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/easyread-2008.html is a dead link - It has 10 refs so it needs replacing.
  • Sorted - JC can you do a check of other articles using that link please. :)Jason Rees (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I will put this article on hold while you address these issues.

Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 17:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Done with everything, I believe. I've also undone one of your edits, specifically the one changing "initially" to "in the beginning". I feel the original wording was less clunky. Thanks for the review! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Further comments That was quick. Looks good, except for one more thing"

• " Initially threatening the major city of New Orleans, it veered westward and made landfall again over marshland, eventually dissipating over Texas on September 10. Damage was lighter than initially feared" - repeat of "initially".

Xtzou (Talk)

Got it, thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Well written and concise

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Well done! Congratulations, Xtzou (Talk) 20:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Prose comments from Cryptic C62

Resolved comments

"Subsequently, it moved ashore on September 2 on the Yucatán Peninsula" The use of both "subsequently" and "on September 2" is redundant. Suggestion: "On September 2, it moved ashore on the Yucatán Peninsula". This also helps by eliminating consecutive prepositional phrases with "on". Good point, done. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) "Initially threatening the major city of New Orleans, it veered westward and made landfall again over marshland" Where did it make landfall? "marshland" is very vague. Ditto. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) "eventually dissipating over Texas on September 10" Texas is a large state. Perhaps this could be made more specific by including a nearby city or the region, such as "eventually dissipating over eastern Texas on September 10". Done as well. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) "Carmen originated in a tropical disturbance that emerged from Africa toward the end of August." Those who aren't familiar with storm seasons might not be clear on which year this occurred. If a user were under the false impression that storms occur in the winter, such a user might think that the 1974 hurricane season spanned from August 1973 to March 1974 or something like that. Suggest appending the quoted sentence with "1974" or "of 1974". Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow. It says it was part of 1974 in the previous sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Allow me to clarify: the previous sentence mentions that the storm was part of the 1974 storm season, but it doesn't actually specify the year in which the storm occurred. It is not uncommon for a season to stretch across multiple years. The 1974 NFL season, for example, actually ended in 1975. Fiscal years also stretch across multiple calendar years. Unless the reader is already familiar with the formatting for storm seasons, they may not be certain what year this storm took place in. Does this make more sense? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Ehh... no offense, of course, but I think that's kind of a stretch. Readers don't have to be spoon-fed the entire article; they're capable of figuring out these little nuances themselves, I think. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) "The storm trekked through the Caribbean Sea" Is "trekked" an accurate jargon word or did you just want a spicy alternative to "moved"? If it's a jargon word, that's fine, but if not, I suggest using a more familiar word instead. Just an attempt to lighten up an otherwise dull subject (to most people). I don't see any compelling reason to change it personally, but I guess if that's what it takes... Juliancolton (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Trekked has several meanings that do not apply in this context, thereby making it somewhat ambiguous. It is also an uncommon word, whereby it is unlikely to be in the vocabulary of non-native English speakers. Because it is an uncommon word, readers may be led to believe that it is a piece of storm jargon and set off on a futile attempt to find the meaning as it applies to storms. Because trekking is an activity primarily for humans, the use of it may be considered anthropomorphic, which is, in turn, unencyclopedic. All of these potential issues can be avoided simply by changing the word to "moved" or by using the appropriate piece of storm jargon (whatever that may be). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I've only known "trek" to mean simply "a journey", but I changed it to "moved". Rather dull, but you may have a point. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) "It moved slowly westward, and associated convective activity was initially sparse." Is there a good article to which we could link the phrase "convective activity"? Possibilities include convection, atmospheric convection, and convective instability. Linked to convection (meteorology). Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) "and was named Carmen upon its classification" named by whom? Added. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) "Under favorable outflow produced by an upper-level high pressure area, the system gradually strengthened as it moved through the Lesser Antilles" What does the phrase "favorable outflow" mean? Favorable to whom? Favorable to the storm, of course! I think this is clear personally, but I'll change it if needed. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Here's the problem: When the word "favorable" is used with respect to a person, it is very easy to determine what it means. However, when using "favorable" with respect to "outflow", the meaning is not so clear because storms ≠ humans. What about the outflow conditions made them favorable for the strengthening of the storm? Also, I think you meant to include the word "conditions" after "outflow", for "under favorable outflow" seems a bit off without it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Good point. I've changed it around a bit, and gone out a limb with a slightly unusual, yet perhaps more applicant, word. I added "conditions" because I agree it sounds better, although the previous wording is also standard. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I think you may have imagined such a change taking place, as the sentence in question looks the same to me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Weird... maybe the edit didn't go through or something. Oh, well; redone in any case. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "quickly deteriorating into a tropical storm by September 3" Having a speed-related adverb and a date in the same sentence is a tad redundant. I suggest either dropping the date or perhaps rearranging to "and by September 3, it had deteriorated into a tropical storm. It might also help to remind readers what the storm was before it deteriorated: "quickly deteriorating from a Category 4 hurricane into a tropical storm." Reworded. I'm not sure I need to repeat that it was a Cat 4, though. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "although wind speeds at the time were identical to that of the initial peak, the barometric pressure was slightly higher." Does a higher barometric pressure mean it's more intense or less intense? I suspect the latter, but some readers might not be aware of the inverse relation between pressure and intensity. I added a fancy footnote to clarify this issue. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "Steering currents became increasingly weaker, and Carmen slowed to a drift." What are steering currents? Also, is there any hard data on how fast the storm moved through the Carribean? Miles per hour or some other measurement would be very helpful considering how often this section uses phrases like "slowed down" and "accelerated". The phrase "slowed to a drift" is especially confusing. Currents that steer, I guess... I don't mean to be rude—honestly—but how else can that be explained? Forward speed stats should be easy to find, so I'll add a couple in later. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, if "steering currents" is just an intuitive explanation rather than a buzzword, perhaps it can simply be replaced with "The ocean currents that were steering the storm became increasingly weaker" or some such. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) It's actually the atmospheric/weather patterns as opposed to the ocean currents. I've changed it to reflect this. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Ditto above. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Got it, I hope! Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Better, but I'm not a fan of "quasi-stationary position". I hereby rescind my previous comment that "slowed to a drift" is confusing. I think once there are forward speed statistics, this phrasing is adequately descriptive of the storm's movement, more so than "quasi-stationary" in any case. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) back to the original wording, then. I'll Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) The first paragraph of Preparations is not in chronological order: "Mexican officials declared an emergency alert by September 2... The following day, the Mexican Army... the Red Cross began preparations for the approaching hurricane by September 2 in Belize" Reorganized. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "Despite threatening the United States city of New Orleans, the hurricane's western turn prior to landfall spared the area from the most severe damage." Not quite grammatically correct. In the strictest interpretation of this phrasing, the noun that was threatening New Orleans was "the hurricane's western turn". Here are two possible rewrites: "Although it initially threatened the United States city of New Orleans, the hurricane turned west prior to making landfall and spared the area of severe damage." or "Although the United States city of New Orleans was initially threatened, the hurricane's western turn before making landfall spared the area of severe damage". Yeah, I spent a while trying (and failing) to construct that sentence well. Thanks for the suggestions – I went with the first one, to avoid passive voice. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "About 60,000 people sought shelter in facilities across the New Orleans region" What kind of "facilities"? That word by itself is somewhat vague. Various shelter facilities. I don't think the article needs to put much more thought into it than that, but if you want specifics, I can look. Juliancolton (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "shelter facilities" is good enough for me. To avoid unnecessary word repetition, how about "About 60,000 people sought refuge in shelter facilities across the New Orleans region" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC) That seems identical except for moving the word a few spaces over. Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) "sought refuge in shelter facilities" makes it clear that the facilities were 'official' and intended to be used for this purpose. "sought shelter in facilities" may, in the minds those who remember Hurricane Katrina and storms like it, imply that people were scrambling for shelter in whatever structures they could find. Which is the more accurate connotation? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The latter, which is more broad and avoids incorrect assumptions. The sources do not, in my opinion, specify that the facilities housing evacuees were actually "shelter facilities". People likely stayed in churches, schools, hotels, etc. Juliancolton (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) "However, due to a change in the naming scheme of Atlantic hurricanes in 1979, it was not replaced by any particular name." This is really confusing. My educated guess is that hurricane names are cyclical, but when Carmen was retired, there was no name chosen to replace it in the cycle. I suggest either explaining the naming procedure enough for this to make sense or just dropping the sentence altogether. Correct. I've made an attempt at simplifying the relevant text. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) "Preparations for Carmen were particularly thorough with 1969's Hurricane Camille in recent memory." This sentence seemed odd to me, so I checked out the source. I don't think this sentence accurately reflects what the source is trying to convey. Perhaps something like "Many Mississippi citizens, having experienced the destruction of 1969's Hurricane Camille, quickly evacuated from their coastal homes of their own accord." would be better. The source says "Because of Camille, everybody along the Gulf Coast has deep respect for Carmen", which is accurately rephrased in the article in my opinion. I appreciate the suggestion, but it seems unnecessary to make the article even more dull and the prose less interesting. Juliancolton (talk) 00:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) It's not accurate. "having deep respect" and making "particularly thorough" preparations are not the same. The current sentence could refer to any kind of preparation, such as canned food, emergency generators, walkie-talkies, medical supplies, rain gear, etc. That's not what the source material is about. The source material is specifically about evacuating the area. There's no way for one to be "particularly thorough" about one's own evacuation: one is either there or one is not. The current sentence is also not reflective of the fact that the article in question is only about Mississippi. Whether my suggested sentence is used or not, these inaccuracies should be addressed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The article neither states nor implies that individual people were thorough about their evacuations, so there is no accuracy. A community of people can be meticulous in their preparations for a hurricane. The Carmen–Camille relationship is a general observation rather than a direct statement of technical fact, so we do not need to be as exact in duplicating the source context to a T. Juliancolton (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I am of the opinion that if you want to keep this sentence as is, you can find a better source for it. Conversely, if you want to use the source, you can find a better sentence to summarize it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I disagree, and while you're of course free to edit the article yourself, I personally do not feel the need to change this particular sentence. From the source currently in use, "'Before Camille they might have been having hurricane parties and things like that, but they are taking things very seriously,' said Sister Pamela, a Catholic nun assisting at a Gulfport refugee center." That quote alone directly backs up the information in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I have changed the sentence in question. Tweak as you see fit. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I still fail to see the issue with the original sentence! The altered text presents the Camille relationship as a side-note, even though it's the whole point of the sentence. Juliancolton (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "Carmen produced moderate rainfall across Puerto Rico and the northern Lesser Antilles, peaking at 5.91 in (150 mm)" From my experience, the word "peak" refers to the point at which the rate of something with respect to another variable is highest. Did you mean to write 5.91 inches per day? Or perhaps the peak refers to the location at which the total rainfall was highest, in which case a location should be specified. If 5.91 inches was the cumulative total, then "peak" is not the correct word. This is pretty much standard wording in tropical cyclone articles. Rainfall in the northern Lesser Antilles peaked at 5.91 inches; locations outside of the area of highest precipitation received less. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I believe you may have misread the source material. The reference for the aforementioned sentence says that 5.91 inches of rain fell on Jajome Alto, Puerto Rico. I have added this to the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Your change looks fine, but how have I misread anything? "Maxima" means "peak". Juliancolton (talk) 12:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "Since Carmen had moved ashore over marshland, it caused far less damage than first feared" less damage because the marshland was not heavily populated? Or less damage because marshlands are somehow not affected by hurricanes as strongly as other areas? I suspect the former. How about "Since Carmen had moved ashore over uninhabited marshland, it caused far less damage than first feared" or some such? Added. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "The storm's greatest impact was the loss of sugar crops in Louisiana." Somewhat subjective unless it is made more specific. How about adding "economic" before "impact" ? But that's not necessarily accurate. The destruction of sugar crops was the most extensive impact from the storm. Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "Ultimately, the hurricane caused yields to drop 12%" This seems incompatible with the previous sentence that I highlighted. If 20% of the crop was destroyed, how could yields drop by only 12%? Perhaps it is that the estimated yields already factor in a certain degree of crop loss? Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Perhaps. Where exactly did you see the 12% figure? I'm looking through the given source and I'm not seeing it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) See the PR on this issue. The source said yields dropped from 25 to 22 tons, which is 12%. In any case, I just removed the sentence, since I don't think it adds much and the potential is great for misinterpretation of the source material. Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane in 16 counties was devastated, and reports indicated as much as 20 percent was destroyed." 20 percent of what? Is there a difference between "devastated" and "destroyed"? Perhaps "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane in 16 counties was damaged, nearly 20 percent of which was destroyed altogether." or some such. I reworded it. Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, I see. Looking at the source, it is clear now that this means that 20% of the total 1974 crop was destroyed. I think the wording can be made slightly less ambiguous as such: "An estimated 308,000 acres (125,000 ha) of sugar cane was devastated, eliminating about 20 percent of the entire 1974 Louisiana sugar crop." or something like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I don't feel comfortable assuming that the crop is those 16 counties accounted for the entire state's crop. Juliancolton (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, upon rereading the source, I've found a different issue: the article currently states that 308,000 acres of sugar cane was devastated, whereas the source simply states that "Louisiana's 16 major sugar cane parishes had an estimated 308,000 acres planted in sugar cane" without indicating how many of those acres were affected. I think our best bet is to drop the acre figure altogether and stick to the percentage to avoid misleading readers as to how much sugar cane was damaged. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Argh, I knew there was a reason for my original wording. Devastated does not necessarily mean destroyed, so the 308,000 acres were partially damaged, of which 20% was destroyed. OK, reworded. Juliancolton (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC) "the more northern of which became consolidated and organized" I don't know what "organized" means in this context. Also, what happened to the southern part? I'm not sure how to further explain what "organized" means... it just indicates that the system... became more organized. Sorry, but I'm not sure what else I can do with that. As for the southern segment of the wave, Thompson (1976) does not specify its ultimate fate. Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Alas, poor southern segment: we hardly knew ye. Anywho, why don't you just try to explain what "organized" means here for me in laymen's terms, then we'll see if we can work out a way to explain it clearly in the article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, sure. "Organized", in this context, means that the convection, or thunderstorms, has strengthened and become more balanced, symmetrical, and conducive for further intensification of the storm as a whole. It's really the same as the standard definition of the word "organized". Any suggestions on how I could explain this in the article would be much appreciated. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm... I'm not entirely sure how to convey that in the article. Perhaps a minor rewording will help: "the more northern of which consolidated into an organized storm system." This doesn't directly explain the term either, but somehow I feel it adds enough context to make the meaning clearer. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC) "Nonetheless, tidal flooding from the Gulf of Mexico and coastal bays, lakes and bayous was severe." The structure of this list is very confusing. Why are there two "and"s but only one comma? It makes sense to me (try imagining parenthesis around the "coastal bays, lakes and bayous"). Juliancolton (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC) A lot of things make sense to us that don't make sense to other people—we write encyclopedia articles for fun! :P I think this could be made clearer by simply replacing "coastal bays, lakes, and bayous" with "coastal bodies of water" or some other coverall phrase like that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) "Winds gusted to 86 mph (138 km/h) at Morgan City, Louisiana, and along the coast tides ran up to 6 ft (1.8 m) above normal." Does this statistic refer to the highest wind speed recorded? Its significance is not made clear in the article. I don't think such a statistic needs to signify its significance. The Monthly Weather Review does not list a higher wind velocity, but it gives no indiciation that its list is comprehensive. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Here's the thing: If the sentence gives no indication that the statistic is significant (which it is), that implies that the location is significant (which it is not). If the only reason to mention this fact is because this is believed to be the highest recorded wind speed, then that should be made explicit so as to avoid leading readers to believe that Morgan City is somehow relevant to the storm. The other problem is that the sentence may also imply that the extra high tides were related to Morgan City as opposed to Shell Beach. How's this for a rewrite: "Gusts of wind reached speeds as high as 86 mph, and along the coast of Louisiana the tides reached as high as 6 ft above normal levels." This makes it clear that the stats are significant because they're the largest known, but does not specifically imply that they are the definitive the maxima for this storm. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the article's prose:

• "where it nearly stalled." Any idea why it stalled? Any idea how it got un-stalled?

• It stalled because the steering currents got weaker, as discussed in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, now that I know that the steering currents were atmospheric rather than tidal, this makes sense. However, I still don't understand how it magically went from being "nearly stalled" to accelerating again. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• "and on Jamaica, the storm caused three drownings." Drownings due to heavy rainfall or high seas? Perhaps it would be better to replace "the storm" with the specific cause. Alternative wording: "and on Jamaica, three people drowned due to _______"

• I can't find any more specific info on this, although I agree it would be a useful addition if possible. I'll keep an eye out. Juliancolton (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

That's it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued review, but to be perfectly honest, I'm afraid I disagree with many of your requests. We must assume some degree of competence on the readers' part and not dull-ify the article by explaining, linking, and over-analyzing everything. Thoughts? Respectfully, Juliancolton (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No offense taken, my good man. You have every right to disagree with my comments, and I don't intend to oppose the FAC based on nitpicks. However, you must realize this: You are more familiar with this topic and with your own writing than the vast majority of readers will be. If I, as someone who truly knows nothing about storms, point out a piece of phrasing that I don't like, it is either because I honestly don't understand it or because I honestly believe it will confuse people. Your goal and my goal are one in the same: to make the most accessible article possible. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, that's fair. I really appreciate the outside review, which is helping to make significant improvements to the article. Juliancolton (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Hurricane Carmen

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hurricane Carmen's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "hurdat":

• From Hurricane Elena: Hurricane Research Division (2012). "Easy to Read HURDAT Best Track 2012". National Hurricane Center. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |Accessdate= ignored (|accessdate= suggested) (help)
• From Tropical cyclone: NHC Hurricane Research Division (2006-02-17). "Atlantic hurricane best track ("HURDAT")". NOAA. Retrieved 2007-02-22.
• From Hurricane Beulah: Atlantic hurricane research division (2009). "Atlantic hurricane database (HURDAT) "best track" (1851–2008)". NOAA. Retrieved 2009-09-13.
• From Hurricane Allen: National Hurricane Center (2010-03-06). "[[HURDAT|North Atlantic Hurricane Database]]". National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved 2010-03-06. {{cite web}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
• From List of Florida hurricanes (1950–1974): NHC Hurricane Research Division (2006-02-17). "Atlantic hurricane best track". NOAA. Retrieved 2007-04-05.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Carmen. 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/20100613132252/http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Academics/CLASSES/G130/reefs/ME_20.htm to http://www.geology.iupui.edu/Academics/CLASSES/G130/reefs/ME_20.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dnr.louisiana.gov/crm/D%20R%20S%20Reports/Feasibility/B.S.%20Phase%201%20Step%20F.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090121042409/https://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/ProjectData/118926/reports/FinalPEISSummary.doc to http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pd/projectslist/ProjectData/118926/reports/FinalPEISSummary.doc

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) 22:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)