Jump to content

Talk:1928 Okeechobee hurricane/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Systemic Bias

I have placed this tag rather than editing pending the discussion on the title, for consistency's sake. But the fact is that the article is skewed towards a views of the hurricane from the American perspective, in many subtle and not so subtle ways, evne if it does acknowledge that impact the hurricane had on non-US places and people. Things like the name of the hurricane and even the dolarization of the amounts of damages (when thsi affected territories that use other currencies etc) speak of systemic bias that should be fixed. --Cerejota (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's systemic bias to give biases on Puerto Rico in U.S. dollars. After all, that's the currency they use there. The damage on Montserrat is actually given in pound sterling. Ucucha 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Not in the lede, which also is vague about the damage being spread across multiple areas. I have an eye for systemic biases, in fact it is one of my primary editing concerns and this articles has slowly improved through the years but still retains vestiges of the initial US-centric bias. I was born and raised in PR, so I do know we use the US dollar, btw. --Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

short rant

The discussion above perfectly illustrates wikipedia's biggest problem. To wit: There's a discussion about something. One side's argument is clearly based on the basic principles of wikipedia while the other side is basically personal opinion. Yet because the numbers of users who happen to find the discussion are roughly similar (I didn't count, but I'll assume this to be true in this case), both arguments are given equal weight and the status quo continues. This particular issue admittedly isn't all that important in the big picture, but it's a sad microcosm of some basic (and perhaps eventually fatal) flaws.

Rant over, moving on... Zeng8r (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Source problem

what's the source: "Barnes, p. 129" stand for?

there's no book list below.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Work needed

It's been 9 years since this article was promoted to featured status, and it needs a tune-up to meet current standards. I have added a couple of citation needed tags. I'm confused by the very first sentence of the lead which states it "was the second deadliest tropical cyclone in the history of the United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane" because, later in the article, the (unsourced and possibly outdated) table titled 'Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes' lists Mitch as having surpassed both. Some work is needed to check that the article does not make claims that are no longer true 9 years later (is it still the record 24-hr rainfall in Puerto Rico? is it still "one of three Atlantic hurricanes to strike the southern mainland of Florida with a central pressure below 940 mbar"?). There also appear to be unnecessary subsection headers and repetition in the Puerto Rico section, a lot of text sandwiched between images in the later sections, some copyediting issues, and a few numbers that need formatting to comply with MOS.

None of this should be particularly difficult to fix, but it needs some attention from editors familiar with the subject and sources. I'm willing to help with copyediting and MOS compliance if someone can take on the issues with facts and sources. Anyone? Maralia (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I will see what i can do with regards to the deadliest hurricanes template for the Atlantic later, though its worth noting that its deadliest Atlantic hurricanes rather than just the Deadliest American hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Forgotten Hurricane?

The very first sentence calls it the 'forgotten hurricane' but makes no mention of the word forgotten until the references and external links. It wasn't until I followed the external link that I knew what was meant by forgotten. Perhaps it is more clear to Americans who have heard of this before, but as someone who has never heard of this hurricane until now, it was rather unhelpful for not including that explanation. The name isn't even cited, and though it may be a local name for the hurricane, I suggest either giving an explanation or removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.129.233 (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have remvoed the forgotten hurricane name as its not a unique name and any hurricanes damage can be forgotten about over time.Jason Rees (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 1928 Okeechobee hurricane. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1928 Okeechobee hurricane. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 19:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane/Archive_2&oldid=967909862"