Talk:Hurricane Camille

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Hurricane Camille was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Wind Strength

There is mention of Camille attaining sustained winds of 190mph, 200mph, 205mph and 210mph all within this article. Can someone please determine which one of these is correct and clean up this contradiction? --Domentolen 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No one really knows, but we can put for susytained winds between 190-210 mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.84.203 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All i can say is that information can come unexpected. After all it took them years before they finally classified Hurricane Andrew as cat. 5. They may raise Camille wind strength or decrease it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.84.203 (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complaints about this article

I'm disappointed. This page on Camille has gone through so many uninformed and misinformed edits that truth is now irrevocably intertwined with fiction. For example, all references to the 3 Army Corps of Engineers post-Camille studies have vanished from the Wikipedia article. No longer, for instance, is there even a mention of the astounding fact that the Mississippi River flowed backwards for 125 miles, to a point upstream of New Orleans, nor the fact that at least a dozen ocean-going freighters were beached, nor any mention of the impact on the offshore oil platforms. Also vanished is any reference to the series of 1969-1970 U.S. Senate hearings on the federal response to Camille, which could certainly be useful to anyone trying to understand the Katrina debacle.

Instead, you guys fuss around about the hurricane party. You keep changing the official windspeeds and you still keep getting them wrong, and you don't even clarify the difference between sustained winds and gusts. As for your citations, you consider those to be authoritative sources?

I've read the 2000 pages of Senate testimony, the ACOE studies, and I've interviewed dozens of surviving victims.

I was initially inclined to edit the article but, no, I won't waste my time. Some idiot will simply jump in and cancel out what I've written and replace it with uninformed nonsense.

216.227.27.238 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Zeb

He's right, of course. This article spends too much time on the alleged party and not enough time on more important matters, such as beached freighters or the hearings that occurred after Camille. We need references for the party section, if it's going to survive, in addition to its being scaled back and being worded less wishy-washy. If not, I could see someone dropping the article back down to B class. It certainly won't make FA, as it stands right now, without a lot of work. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

Sourcing:

  1. There are several sections and statements that are lacking sources. Since the GA criteria have changed significantly concerning sourcing since the article was passed in 2006, several changes need to be made. The "Storm History" and "Comparisons to Hurricane Katrina" need further references along with the statements listed below.
  2. "In all, 8,931 people were injured, 5,662 homes were destroyed, and 13,915 homes experienced major damage, with many of the fatalities being coastal residents who had refused to evacuate."
  3. "Alabama also experienced damage along U.S. Highway 90: 26,000 homes and over 1,000 businesses were wiped out completely across the state of Alabama."
  4. "Totals say that 3,800 homes and businesses were completely destroyed."
  5. "Camille caused moderate rainfall in Tennessee and Kentucky of between 3 and 5 inches (130 mm),[13] helping to relieve a drought in the area.[citation needed]"
  6. "In Nelson County alone, 133 bridges were washed out, while some entire communities were under water.[citation needed]"
  7. "A popular rumor has Brugger telling a radio station during an interview that he wouldn't leave because since Camille's surge had not affected the inn, Katrina's would not either." Got rid of it. Even if it were sourced, I can't see rumors making an encyclopedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. "Prior to the collapse of the Richelieu Apartments, Ben Duckworth shined a flashlight down a stairwell and found the water within one step of the third-story floor; this establishes a surge height of 28 feet (8.5 m) at that spot at that time. About 15 minutes later, the building collapsed and the evidence vanished with it."

Other issues:

  1. "One of its rigs due to both extreme wave action and a mudslide at the Gulf of Mexico's bottom." This sentence needs to be reworded.
  2. The "Retirement" section should be merged into the "Aftermath" or "Naming" section since there isn't enough information to warrant a subsection.

Side notes (Not necessary to complete these for the review):

  1. I tagged Image:Camille1969filledrainblk.gif to be copied over to Wikimedia Commons. If anyone is interested in doing so, it shouldn't take too long to do. Done - ✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. It may be beneficial for the article to address the issues raised in the prior section on this talk page ("Complaints about this article"). The article is broad enough to cover the topic but the other information would be beneficial for improving the article and helping it to advancing to higher classes.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Failed

Sorry for the delay, I guess I've been enjoying spring break too much! Since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)