Talk:Hurricane Charley

Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.

Hurricane Charley 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: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. (Reviewed version).

WFTX in Ft. Myers was first to report change in direction

The morning that Charley hit Florida I was working at a TV station in Orlando and watching a weather report from WFTX in Ft. Myers. I don't remember the forecaster's name but he said at around 6am that he thought Charley would go up through the middle of Florida and hit Orlando. I'll find his name and post it here. He deserves to be know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.143.220 (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Charley and the Chocolate Factory separate article

Section moved from Talk:2004 Atlantic hurricane season.

Given that Charley looks like it's going to make a name for itself by hitting Tampa at a significant strength, it's probably time to think about giving it its own article. Already had someone ask on IRC asking if it had its own article. I'm going to do it myself in a few hours if there's no objections (we need to move a little more rapidly than with most articles). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Go for it, you seem to be better with describing actions than me. I'm best at parroting the NHC. :P Incidentally, with the NHC now ignoring TD Bonnie, what's the best source of info? How long do we note Bonnie? Also, the last time Tampa/Clearwater was hit by a hurricane was, IIRC, 1912. So that alone makes this notable. Here's to landfall. --Golbez 05:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm parroting the NHC as well, with a few other NWS sources, and occasionally whatever pops up elsewhere (Jimbo's been tracking the storm and providing some local news links on IRC). As far as Bonnie goes, the NHC has had the decency to provide a copy of the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center's advisory. Some stats on hurricanes hitting Tampa are available elsewhere [1] -- Cyrius|✎ 05:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It has been done. The intro could use some work. Now it needs an image! -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Charley heads to Tampa

The wrath of God descends upon Wikipedia's server farm - Tim Shell

I prefer to think of it as an interesting and inconvenient coincidence. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:09, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll be here on wikipedia at least until either one of us loses power. --ssd 14:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC), FL

Ah well I am sure Jimbo will nip out into the middle of it to get some great GFDL photos. Pcb21| Pete 16:15, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Charley took a turn east and isn't even expected to hit Tampa any more. anthony (see warning) 17:47, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presumably the UPS managed the Tampa power cuts OK, then? -- Karada 00:29, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What Tampa power cuts? Gamaliel 00:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Word has it Tampa cut the power deliberately, instead of waiting for the network to be damaged by the storm. --Golbez 00:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps in some low lying parts, but certainly not in the entire city. I am posting from Tampa. Gamaliel 01:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Downtown Tampa had its power cut. Wikipedia's hosting center was running on generators from about 10am to whenever they turend it back on. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:04, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Today's Tampa Tribune reported that they planned to cut power, but never actually did so as Charlie changed course. Gamaliel 17:48, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo said that the hosting facility in downtown Tampa was running on generators. He may have misstated, misheard, or been misinformed, but he said they were on generators due to the power being cut. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg, Florida also had its power cut. It's not strictly part of Tampa, but part of the Tampa Bay area, which is frequently referred to as Tampa. anthony (see warning) 12:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sad. Cyrius gets the 5pm updates, I empty my cache a half dozen times and www.nhc.noaa.gov still insists on giving me the 2pm update. :( What's your secret, Cyrius? --Golbez 21:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Which page are you looking at? I see both 2pm and 5pm versions. anthony (see warning) 21:49, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ I go there and it says Public Advisory #19 5 PM EDT, but when I click it, it gives me Advisory 18 Correction, 2pm. :( All the others work, except maps, but maps usually lag behind. But I wanna know why I can't seem to get 5pm. --Golbez 21:54, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And of course now it works. Mutter. But it's off and on, it's weird. --Golbez 21:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.wunderground.com/tropical/ is good when the official NHC site seems to be lagging significantly. They repost all the textual content from the NHC, after mercifully running it through a caps filter. Not sure what channel they use to get it, but it's not scraped off the NHC site. They're a bit overloaded today, so you may get an error page. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:01, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've been using Wikipedia all throughout today and it was fine. It's weird how the storm completely missed Tampa and St.Pete. It barely even rained where I'm at. That NWS-NOAA website is kind of hard to navigate and understand. I was just looking on the Weather Channel site. Milk 05:09, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From what I've heard from long time residents here (tampa) this is a common occurance. Even the news seemed to be urging that "this time it's really going to hit us" before the hurricane went on a different track, implying that there were a number of these same warnings in previous years. Still a lot of preparation, though. I saw quite a few empty gas stations, and they were out of vinegar (why vinegar?) and other items at the stores. anthony (see warning) 12:44, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Highlands County and surrounding Restored power promised by 24 Aug, Midnight. Sebring water never stopped, not contaminated. From the viewpoint of downtown Sebring, the county appears to be getting power basically from SE to NW, this makes sense because 1. NW is where the hurricane passed most closely. 2. There are at least two power companies. Glades Electric runs the SE part. Where the power is restored, it's said to be less reliable than normal so far. Public schools close for the remainder of the week of the 14th.

cuba damage

damage to cuba was not minor the Miami Heral reported today 1 billion dollar damage www.miami.com

--LegCircus 8/26/04

Then Be Bold and edit the article and pop that in. We only put in what we know, this is apparently new to us. --Golbez 17:18, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Robbie Berg

Where is a public reference to the "criticism" cited in the current version? Can't find anything but a short CNN interview, and it's not in there: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0408/14/se.11.html

Reference to the AP story added. They don't have the exact quote of him criticising the media, or I'd have added it. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category 5?

From an article I just found:

Officially, Charley has been classified as a Category 4 storm with winds of 131-155 mph.

That could change as scientists collect and analyze the data, according to Wayne Salladé, director of emergency management for Charlotte County.

He said Charley registered winds of 173 mph in Punta Gorda and 165 mph at the Charlotte County Airport, but he doesn't know if the velocity held for at least a minute to meet the threshold for upgrading the storm.

It took 10 years for meteorologists to recognize the severity of Andrew's winds, Salladé said Monday morning at an appearance before the West Charlotte County Civic Association.

Whatch'all think? Not worth putting in the article yet, but could be interesting in the future. The reason the damage was so much less than Andrew was because of the much smaller eye - the smallest ever to make landfall, only 5 miles wide. --Golbez 18:49, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's plausible. Charley's estimated at 130 knots for the island landfall on Cayo Costa. Category 5 begins at 136 knots. I doubt it'd be at 5 for mainland landfall though, wind speeds had already started to drop off at that point. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a note saying that "It is possible that the winds were even stronger at landfall, possibly at or near Category 5 strength (155 miles per hour or 250 km/h), based on later images and assessments" that had already been written. Sometimes they overlook things...and the compact nature of Charley made it very prone to drastic differences in intensity. You are right, less than 50 miles from the eye of the storm in either direction, there was little or no damage (can't say that for Frances, Ivan or Jeanne)!

I was caught in this hurricane in Florida, and at the time e were told all the emergency info etc, and that it was a category 5 severe hurricane so we had to prepare well. You could say i may have been mistaken but you don't forget experiences like that. it changed my life and I am now working towards becoming a meteorologist. (i'm only 16 but still..i won't forget it!!, or the tornadoes that accompanied it forming along the road from our car!!

Map/Infobox

of the 4 major storms for 2004, this one lacks the map and infobox. I don't recall who was working on those, but I don't know where to find the map. Oh yes, it was Tomf688. --Golbez 19:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't start working with the hurricane articles until after Charley, so I never put an infobox in it. I've been thinking of making a standard template for the hurricanes, much like the ones for the hurricane seasons. --tomf688^(talk) 19:23, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

There are now Infoboxes for all hurricanes since the late 1970s, and slowly they are being added to all notable hurricanes (all retired names + notable pre-1950 hurricanes). For now, a picture, not the map, is included in all the hurricanes from before 2004, as maps can be hard to come by (especially for historical hurricanes) and they need to be standard. CrazyC83 6 July 2005 22:51 (UTC)

Named storms

The article says: "This made 2004 the first year two named storms have struck the same state in the same 24-hour period since 1906. Mainland landfall occurred only 29 hours apart." But storm names hadn't begun in 1906. Nationalparks 04:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Good article. But a few more things are needed:

More impact section, and some structure to the impact. I know there's got to be a lot more info about this storm available.
References.

Jdorje 22:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba damage would be a good start. Also, would anyone mind if I got rid of the big and bulky death table for something smaller and less daunting? What about something like this?

**Storm deaths by region**
Region	Direct	Indirect	Total
Jamaica	1	0	1
Cuba	4	0	4
Florida	9	20	29
Rhode Island	1	0	1
Total	15	20	35

Nice and to the point. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination

I withdrew the nomination. I am currently doing a redo for the article, and when it is done, I'll renominate it. Please wait, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a fact abot Polk County in the impact section. I don't have a real scorce, my scorce is i was there. I, first hand saw the eye of Charley cross my house. I think I might know some stuff about Charley damage in my county. Hope you all don't mind. →Cyclone1→ 21:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source other than yourself? I want this to be an FA eventually, and unsourced statements such as yours aren't good for an FA. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I could search for one. I got a few candidates for websites that might have some info on that. I would love to see Charley as an FA. →Cyclone1→ 01:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muwahahahah! →Cyclone1→ 02:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, but you can't use forums as a source. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well its not that big a deal. I'll delete it. →Cyclone1→ 03:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verde type hurricane

Should I remove what it says in the intro about Charley being a Cape Verde type hurriane? Charley formed no where near the CV is. →Cyclone1→ 02:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]

True, but it was a tropical wave that, after developing, followed the path of the outer periphery of the subtropical ridge. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess... I always thought CVT hurricanes formed in the east Atlantic near Cape Verde and then moved northwest, much like Ivan did. Oh well. →Cyclone1→ 03:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think Cyclone1 is right here Hink, the NHC does not refer to it as a CV hurricane (like it does for Ivan, Frances, Irene...) Most storms in a reason form from a TW and recurve remember...--Nilfanion (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does fail that it didn't form near the coast of Africa, but it came from an African TW and followed path # 1 in the Cape-Verde article. However, most wouldn't count that as a CV hurricane, so I'll just remove it. No biggie. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, it is not a Cape Verde storm, as it formed in the vicinity of the Windwards. A CV storm normally forms east of 50°W and often east of 40°W. (2004 was littered with CV storms though - it had 5 hurricanes and a tropical depression form in the Cape Verde region) CrazyC83 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

The Florida impact section needs to be expanded. More information on the impact on homes in coastal Lee and Charlotte counties, more information on the impact on citrus growing and inland areas, and additional related information may be needed, given how notable this storm is. CapeVerdeWave 11:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also needs more info in the aftermath section. Juliancolton 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article Nomination Process

I have nominated Hurricane Charley for Featured Article consideration. I personally think it is ready for at least GA-class recognition. The GA nomination process suggests using the FA nomination process instead for a closer scrutiny, so I decided to take that route. The goal is A-class or GA-class recognition, though if it does end up a Featured Article, it could pass in time to potentially be inserted as the August 13 FAotD (pending additional approval by the FAotD czar -- I am aware he has a schedule of FAotD articles). --Kitch 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing it from FAC, as I have misread the GA nomination process. FA nomination is recommended in place of standard GA nomination only for long articles (articles >32kb.) I am putting up a GA nomination instead. --Kitch 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm? No, you understood it better the first time. GA and FA are completely separate, and FA is far more formal than GA. (FA has official recognition on Wikipedia while GA does not.) Generally, GA is meant for not yet quite complete but very good articles whereas FA is meant for "perfect" articles. —Cuiviénen 17:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - For what it's worth, I think you should have left this thing on FAC. Cuivienen's right. Ryu Kaze 14:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you wait a bit before FAC'ing it? I am in the long process of remaking the article from scratch, and only have the rest of Florida and aftermath to do. If anyone wants, they can help, but I don't think it's FA worthy as it is (not quite). Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UOM

I read this article because it has been nominated for GA, suggest that you take the time to read WP:MOSNUM#Units_of_measurement and apply to the article. Gnangarra 09:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GAC

Rated based on 7 criteria:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass

The only thing that I have a problem with is per above, the use of only mph. However, I don't think that that's enough to deny it GA status, and also, I'll go thorugh and add it myself, rather than waiting for someone else to do it. Good job! I recommend running through it a bit more, and resubmiting it to FAC. --PresN 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWS reports

These should be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Irony

Is Hurricane Charley the only major hurricane to have struck the US on Friday the 13th? -- E. Brown 06:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a pass through the archive, and found that there were two others. Hurricane #2 in 1880 struck just south of the Texas/Mexico border (which means it doesn't really count, but it did produce Cat. 3 conditions in Texas); incidentally enough it was a Category 4 on Friday, August 13th. Hurricane #9 in 1893 hit South Carolina as a major hurricane on Friday, October 13, causing 26 deaths. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

where do you find so much information from, Hurricanehink? Juliancolton 01:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurdat. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Florida impact

“

Other Florida school systems were also severely disrupted: Orange County Public Schools opened their doors on August 9, 2004, only to close them on August 12 as Charley approached from the southwest. Damage was so extensive that schools remained closed to students until August 24, only to close again after Hurricane Frances and Hurricane Jeanne menaced the same areas. The storm resulted in several non-federal built-in holidays being canceled, and the tradition of releasing students one hour early on Wednesday being canceled for the rest of the year to make up for over two weeks of lost class time.^{[citation needed]}

”

Do we need that? I can't find a reference for it, and there is a lot of useful school damage information here... so what does everyone think? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

A possible FAC with a little more work? Juliancolton 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeedy, let's get started! *Cremepuff 222* 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, guys, the Florida impact section is not complete. As you guys can see, there is a lot of stuff for Charley here. Just search for storm event in Florida during August of 2004, and you'll have lots of events that are still not covered by the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will work on the Florida section more, but I don't know if that website is official reports. Juliancolton (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Climatic Data Center sounds official enough for me... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is wrong with the Florida section? Juliancolton (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That it covers very well the impact of Charley on SW Florida, but the coverage of its impact in SE/NE Florida (the Orlando/Jacksonville areas) is skimpy at best. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's why we need to get to work on it if we ever want to get it featured! :-) *Cremepuff 222* 23:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is really no info on the damage on the east coast of Florida. Juliancolton (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see that website-I will look through it later. Could the info from the local NWS reports? Juliancolton (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]