Talk:1900 Galveston hurricane

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article1900 Galveston hurricane is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article1900 Galveston 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2005.
On this day... Article milestones
August 31, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
January 25, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
May 13, 2019Good article nomineeListed
June 23, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 6, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 8, 2004, September 8, 2006, September 8, 2007, September 8, 2012, September 8, 2019, and September 8, 2022.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

I massively expanded this article on the deadliest natural disaster in United States history, and no one else has touched it since. I'd just like someone to look it over and make sure I didn't screw it up. -- Cyrius| 01:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The English prose style is abysmal, as it is in nearly all of these hurricane articles. I could quote examples for hours but let's just mention one: "12,000 individuals". Of course they are individuals! Unless you meant, "12,000 individuals and 10 pairs of conjoined twins." Someone needs to rewrite all of these weather articles to get them past the 9th grade composition level. There is also far too much linkage. The same thing does not need to be linked over and over again. And every tiny detail does not require its own link. That's hypertext abuse, and knowing how not to do it is critical for this project. Finally, please avoid techno-mumble such as saying again and again "Safford-Simpson blah blah blah". You can just say "Category 4" and have THAT phrase link to the article about the rating scale. Got it? Good. Antimatter33 (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another one I just spotted - ugh, double ugh: "1998's Hurricane Mitch". You made a year number into a possessive in an exposition? That's terrible!! My point is - it's not enough to get the facts right - you have to be able to write an exposition without sounding like a middling high school student. Antimatter33 (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It says, "This was considered to be an exaggeration." By whom was it considered an exaggeration?
Great job! From the few History Channel and TLC programs I've seen about this event, I would have to say that this article covers all the basics well. If your intention is to put this through FAC, I think the article is ready for that. --mav
I don't know about FAC. It's just an important event and it was worrying me that nobody had so much as found a typo to fix. -- Cyrius| 05:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh ya. I'd say you could remove the stub message and please add whatever references you used on this article in a ==References== section. Adding a ==Further reading== section would also be nice. --mav
I mistakenly left the stub message in at first (it was initially a stub), then I intentionally left it to see if anyone was paying attention :)
As far as references go, sources were either online or from memory. The three listed in External links form the bulk of the material. However, the local university library has a small pile of books on the subject, including Isaac's Storm and Isaac Cline's autobiography and some reprints of material from 1900. I'm just afraid that if I check them out, I'm going to end up writing even more on this depressing subject. -- Cyrius| 05:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Headline text

Writing more would honor those who died. If you used the external links as references, then standard practice would be to have (also used as a reference) behind them. If all the info on the extranally-linked websites is already in the Wikipedia article, then move them into a ==References== section. Again, good work. --mav
One of the latest edits introduced some errors. Specifically

Merged badly with the second paragraph in the Destruction section. Cut and paste errors methinks, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Otherwise I like what I see and can't think of much else it needs so far. - Taxman 22:54, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Whoops. I think I just got distracted and scrolled up to work on something else. -- Cyrius| 23:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised you removed this from PR. I think it is a pretty good article now. A few more copyedits (eg removing inline comments) and I think it is ready for FAC. - Taxman 14:50, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
I wanted to let it sit and simmer for a while, and the PR page was getting fairly large, anyway. It's going to be the middle of next week before I can get to the library to check my spelling on those quotes against the source. I'm also working on getting stubs in for the red links. There were just too many links that went nowhere (that should have gone somewhere) for me. -- Cyrius| 17:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Worst natural Disaster?[edit]

HI. This seems to be a contradiction, or at least I don't get it:

"The number most cited in official reports is 8,000, giving the storm the third-highest number of casualties of any Atlantic hurricane, after the Great Hurricane of 1780, and 1998's Hurricane Mitch. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is to date the deadliest natural disaster to strike the United States."

How can it be the deadliest natural disaster if it had less casualties than other storms? Am I missing something? --DanielCD 18:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're missing the fact that Atlantic hurricanes hit countries other than the United States. -- Cyrius| 19:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh. That's true. Thanks. --DanielCD 19:52, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, casualties might just have been injured, not necessarily killed. 04:09, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's just the geography for the other two storms. The 1780 hurricane hit Barbados and neighbors, while Mitch hit Honduras and adjacent countries. -- Cyrius| 00:59, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Made some edits; many just style and wording. Really nice article; very thorough. --DanielCD 20:03, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have I not been following the news closely? I think the Katrina death toll numbers are off by a few factors of 10: "In contrast, through September 21, 2005, Hurricane Katrina's death toll is 15,564 and growing."

That would be vandalism...which anything Katrina-related is prone to. Jdorje 22:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History channel video?[edit]

I just saw a video on the History Channel (I'm pretty sure) on this hurricane a few weeks ago. Someone might feel like digging it up and linking to it at the bottom. --Oreckel 13:41, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too, that's why I requested it for the main page. I'm finding the link now. --brian0918™ 13:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this, I was "out" for a while, and didn't think to check this talk page when I got back. The video in question is most likely the History Channel's documentary version of the book Isaac's Storm, already referenced. But now I know who to blame for ruining my plan to request it for the Main Page on June 1, first day of the Atlantic hurricane season. -- Cyrius| 00:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Total damages[edit]

The info box states that total damages were $30 million (1900 dollars) or $36 billion (2003 dollars). I'm not sure I really understand this -- surely it doesn't mean to imply that a dollar in 1900 had the purchasing power that one thousand, two hundred dollars would today?! I don't know offhand but I'd assume that a 1900 dollar is more equivalent to 10 or 20 of today's dollars.

I think they're using something like the righthand column in this reference [1], which is "population, wealth, and inflation adjusted", versus the left, which is inflation adjusted only. It looks like that table is from a paper based on the same research listed here, whose methods are explained here. The wealth adjustment makes sense to me, but the population adjustment seems a bit sketchy still. — Laura Scudder | Talk 03:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The population-adjusted value is the NHC's estimate of what damage an identical hurricane would do if it struck today. I think they used it to try to get through to public policy makers that a hurricane that struck in exactly the right place could potentially do upwards of $100 billion dollars in damages (but I guess they failed). It's a pretty interesting figure to throw into an article, but you certainly can't claim that's how much damage the storm did. Jdorje 22:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We gotta mark this page... i have a feeling that Hurricane Katrina will knock this into 4th hardest hitting hurricane. --Dragontamer 01:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of the article[edit]

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake article is named with the year appearing before the city. Should this one be renamed with the same format (1900 Galveston Hurricane) or viceversa (San Francisco earthquake of 1906)? --xDCDx 08:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current title was chosen over "1900 Galveston Hurricane" based on its wider use on the internet. Likewise, "1906 San Francisco earthquake" is more popular than the other wording. Don't let the inconsistency get to you, it's not important. -- Cyrius| 18:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know about other areas. Around Beaumont, you can refer to it as "The 1900 Storm" and pretty much everyone will know what you are talking about. Could we include that name in the article?

Mismatching velocities[edit]

The text says winds topped at 135mph. The chart on the right says 150mph. Needs to be cleared up.

It was 135 at landfall, (at least) 150 in the open water. (I think it might have been a Category 5 in the open Gulf but there is nothing to back it up) CrazyC83 18:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Impact[edit]

I know the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 impactd places other than Galveston so this article needs mention impact in Caribbean, Cuba, Louisiana, rest of Texas, Ohio Valley, New England and Atlantic Canada. Probably we need to have a Effect of Galevston Hurricane by region sub page like we did with the Hurricane Katrina article. Storm05 20:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not need to have a sub page. But we do need to mention damage elsewhere, if only to say that the storm caused little damage (I have no idea how much damage was caused in Cuba and the midwest). I'd also be in favor of a structuring to a storm history + preparations + impact + aftermath sections as has become common for just about every other TC article (currently there is little information about storm history or the hurricane's formation). — jdorje (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that a subpage is unnecessary, but I kinda like the it as is, a historic narrative. The problem with applying a structure designed for modern hurricanes is that we have completely different sorts of information on modern hurricanes compared to this one. — Laura Scudder 23:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I originally thought that too, but after applying it to 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, 1935 Labor Day Hurricane, and 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane I no longer see a problem. The only extra information this article has is background (the current "The city" section), which could maybe go into a separate "Background" section. — jdorje (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lack of references[edit]

The lack of any inline references is a major problem for this article. I don't think it's appropriate for a FA to not have inline references. The ref/reference format is in place; can some of the original authors go back through and add the references into the text? — jdorje (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going through the listed online references and trying to identify facts, but I don't have any of the paper references and rather doubt my local library would have them. So I'll have to leave that to the original authors. — Laura Scudder 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you can find online references to complement the paper references, that would be ideal. — jdorje (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I've gotten all the big facts used out of the listed references. I'll take a look around for some more as there's still lots of facts calling out for citation. — Laura Scudder 23:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think this one is a High; ~10000 deaths and a billion in 2000 USD damages is very notable to me.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did too until I compared it to an article like History, or even History of the United States, or Texas. It's a big scale when you think about it that way. — Laura Scudder 15:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I agree, but I'm looking at it in terms of what the importance scale actually says:
Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another.
From that I think it is a high-importance tropical cyclone but in terms of another topic (History of the US, say) it is likely to be lower.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean now. I didn't realize that rating was in the context of the tropical cyclones project. Then I'd definitely say it's high importance. — Laura Scudder 16:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upper echelon of High. If the storm hit today and killed 8,000, with the gold mine of information that would come out, the article would look a lot like that of Hurricane Katrina and would likely be Top-class if it had the same tragic and traumatic impacts. CrazyC83 01:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article structure[edit]

This article doesn't seem to follow the structure outlines for tropical cyclone articles. It has a very odd structure. But I'm not sure how to properly organize it without losing information. Can anybody fix the problem? íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 15:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never been a fan of trying to fit round pegs into square holes for consistency's sake. I think it works find as structured now. — Laura Scudder 16:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source of storm intensity?[edit]

"The highest measured wind speed was 100 mph (160 km/h) just after 6 p.m., but the Weather Bureau's anemometer was blown off the building shortly after that measurement."

If the anemometer was blown off then how can it be said that the storm that hit Galveston was a Category 4 storm? Reub2000 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The winds were estimated to be at least 120 mph later, so NOAA follows that estimate:
The greatest velocity for five minutes was 84 miles per hour at 6:15 p.m. With two minutes at the rate of 100 miles per hour. The anemometer blew away at this time, and it is estimated that prior to 8 p.m. the wind attained a velocity of at least 120 miles per hour.[2]
Titoxd(?!?) 03:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does anyone know how long it took to rebuild the city? That'd be a great addition to the article. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This was featured a long time ago. Trouble is there is the perception that once an article is featured it needs no more work. That is not true as standards change. The biggest problem is this article as it stands is it only really addresses the storm and Galveston; it is more comparable to effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans than to Hurricane Katrina. There is minimal information about impact elsewhere in the US, and in the Caribbean. The meteorological information also seems fairly weak.

The style of the prose is somewhat distinct from other hurricane articles, but that isn't a problem in itself.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True that. I've wanted for a long time to bring this into a similar structure as other storm articles, though I never really realized it ignores effects in Cuba and elsewhere. One issue is the "The city" section, which basically gives background on the storm. I'd think this could fall either under 'Preparations' or under a new section 'Background' in the traditional tc article structure. Some people may have issues with heavily restructuring a FA, however - though I think everyone would agree the article is badly missing a synoptic history (storm history). — jdorje (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the need to restructure necessarily, there is nothing wrong with a quirky style per se. I'd disagree with just rejigging sections (and their titles) to bring it into line with how the more recent ones were done, if that is the only thing done. The lack of information is serious and I will send to WP:FAR in a couple weeks if we don't get any improvements on that. As for hacking at a FA, Be bold!--Nilfanion (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do feel a separate synoptic history is desirable. The rest of the structure is not mandatory but the article pretty much falls into the same ordering already. — jdorje (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From reports of Strength & size, it sounds the like the only area effected greatly was, Galveston. It only be came a hurricane in the middle of the Gulf. Before that it was a Tropical Storm, and did not cause large amounts of damage in such for.--Lionheart Omega 01:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how speculation about information that *might* exist is relevant. Galveston was the largest city in Texas at the time. It is where the most damage and the largest loss of life occured. The books I know of on the topic refer to it as the Galveston Storm of 1900. This is because individual storms and hurricanes didn't have a naming system in 1900. Hence, "Galveston" Hurricane of 1900. As for meteorological data, you aren't going to find any AccuWeather hurricane watch charts from September, 1900. Deatonjr (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NYT Archives[edit]

I added several links to articles from the New York Times historical archives, now that they're publicly accessible. Pasketti 16:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving them back here to the talk page:

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The first two historic photos, one captioned "This photograph shows the aftermath of the hurricane and the destruction it wrought" and the other, captioned "Homes in Galveston such as this one were reduced to timbers by the hurricane winds and floods" are from the 1889 Johnstown flood, not the Galveston Hurricane. For proof, go to the Library of Congress's Prints & Photos online archive ( and search for digital ID "cph 3b40885" to see another view of the Catholic Church in the first scene. The second scene includes one of Johnstown's schoolhouses, which was used as a morgue after the flood (I can't find a picture right now, but trust me, that's Johnstown as well). --Brassbear (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you please provide a direct link to the catholic church photo. I was unable to find it by searching for digital ID that you gave. Thanks --Nsaum75 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Nsaum75,
Unfortunately, the LOC's site uses a cgi page for it's results, and I'm not sure how to get a permanent link that includes all the pertinent info. To find the photo, go to and put "cph 3b40885" in the search box. Then, before clicking search, change the drop down menu directly below the search box to "search in number fields." This will turn it up right away. I'm sure there is a way to get the permanent page link, I just can't figure it out right now. I found the second photo, on a National Park Service site about the Johnstown flood:
--Brassbear (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to the NOAA site in the image has been updated, and the image has been removed from the article. The updated NOAA site notes that the images that were thought to be of the Galveston Hurricane were indeed taken at the Johnstown Flood. Does the Johnstown Flood page need images? 25or6to4 (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other Communities Affected[edit]

After reading many articles in The Handbook of Texas Online [3] I have found that the storm did much more than just destroy Galveston. For example in the histories of towns like Pattison, Brookshire, Tomball, Waller, and Hempstead, all some 75-100 miles inland of Galveston, there is evidance of destruction and damage caused by this storm. Many smaller towns within a 50 mile radius of Galveston were never rebuilt or never regained the growth they were enjoying prior to the storm.

As important as the destruction was to Galveston, I would still like to see more on the damage and destruction that occured to other communities. Anyone interested in writing this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmpafford (talkcontribs) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1867 Galveston hurricane[edit]

I wanted to suggest mention of this hurricane and a link to this article "1867 Hurricane left mark on Galveston" be included since those who worry about Hurricane Ike will look to Galveston's past storms to predict the future. And congratulations on having written one of Wikipedia's finest articles. rumjal 12:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik Larson interview[edit]

There should be a link in the references to this interview with the author of Isaacs Storm, a book about the 1900 hurricane rumjal 12:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Since the article was recently re-titled to have the "h" in Hurricane as lowercase, I think we should talk of another move, before we go crazy in fixing all of the redirects. I propose moving it to 1900 Galveston hurricane. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how much we'd gain by doing it, but I see nothing wrong with it. AFAIK that's what the old title was. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original title was Galveston Hurricane, then Galveston Hurricane of 1900, followed by its current form. I believe my proposed change is much more natural than the current one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, ok. True, your title does flow better, but I think they discourage starting article titles with numerical characters. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JC, we have dozens to hundreds of articles (maybe) that start with the year. I doubt it is a problem. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed true. :-) Go ahead and move. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional Links[edit]


FYI: I added a Historigraphy section to the Aftermath. The point of the section was to mention that the hurricane and its aftermath separate two widely recognized historical periods, each a few decades long. Even though the article is not about these two periods I think it is important to understand the storm's role in the history of those periods.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A big tip in Galveston2.jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:A big tip in Galveston2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 8, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 21:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Effects of 1900 Galveston hurricane
A house tipped over as a result of the 1900 Galveston hurricane, which made landfall in Galveston, Texas, 110 years ago today. The Category 4 hurricane was responsible for approximately 8,000 deaths, making it the deadliest natural disaster to strike the United States to date (in comparison, 1,800 people died as a result of Hurricane Katrina). After striking Galveston, the storm blew northward to the Great Lakes, then headed eastward just north of Halifax, Nova Scotia, before disappearing into the Atlantic Ocean.Photo: Griffith & Griffith; Restoration: Lise Broer

Survivor Plaques[edit]

Since Galveston is near and dear to me, I think it would be good to put up a little something about the survivor plaques that bulidings have that survived the storm, like the Strand Theater. Just a thought. Being semi-new to Wikipedia, Im not quit sure where to pu it. Help me out? Thanks! Flightx52 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, we can work on that here. Do you have a list of buildings that have those plaques? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well as of now what I can say is that any building pre 1900 is eligible to have one. Maybe that could work. If I need to, I can look up every single building that has one, but doing it will take some time. Galveston is a fairly large place after all. If you need some builing to go off of you can use the Strand Theater. Flightx52 (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
a single photo with caption would suffice for now. Ken (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 2[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 3[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 4[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 5[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 6[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 7[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 8[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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thomas Edison filmed the aftermath of this disaster; media that is now in the public domain.   — C M B J   06:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurricane Ike (2008)[edit]

It amazes me that there was only one mention, and as merely a by-blow, of Hurricane Ike. I've added a link in See Also to Hurricane Ike, Texas. It should be worked into the article. Look at the picture at that link. The difference between having a seawall and not. The complacency of the residents, and the needless deaths, only 108 years after Galveston's tragedy. My feeling is that the Wikiproject has some thinking to do about education vs. celebration. Hopefully this article on the "deadliest hurricane in US history" is an exception to good work elsewhere? Shenme (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change "Prior to" to "Until"?[edit]

Since this good faith change on Feb 19 of "Prior to" to "Until" there has been an edit war over whether the article should say:

Prior to the Hurricane of 1900, Galveston was considered to be a beautiful and prestigious city...


Until the Hurricane of 1900, Galveston was considered to be a beautiful and prestigious city...

I have therefore restored it to the previously stable wording of "Until". Given the edit war, obviously this is a controversial change, so consensus favoring the change must be established here on the talk page before the change is made. Make your respective cases, folks, or find something else to do. But please stop edit warring over this. --B2C 06:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using "Great" in the infobox[edit]

I understand this is one of the names, but it is an older alias, and the article title doesn't even reflect that anymore. I think "Great Galveston Hurricane" should be used as an alternate for the hurricane, but not at the top of the infobox. Asking for consensus. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The Great Galveston Hurricane" is what it's called, colloquially.
You're just getting yourself into trouble by following me around and revrting my edits without having any idea of what you're doing. You should really cut it out. BMK (talk) 01:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A "colloquial name" should not be used in the infobox: a formal name should be. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got a policy to back that up? Knock it off, please. BMK (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are you so antagonistic to me? This is conduct unbecoming a veteran editor. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Antagonistic? You're following me around, reverting my edits when you have no clue about the subject matter, and have reported me repeatedly to 3RR. Who is antagonistic to whom? Just stop retaliating against me because you're pissed off about Union Square and everything will be hunky-dory. BMK (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personal disputes are not relevant to the current issue-- please address Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1900 Galveston hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 02:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The infobox says "equivalent to $1066 million in 2018, adjusted for inflation" - insert joke about the present losing a billion dollars over a decade, so that's why you don't say billion here?
  • There was a template causing that to happen. I fixed it by typing it in manually--12george1 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Most of these deaths occurred in the vicinity of Galveston after storm surge inundated the entire island with 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m) of water. Something about the wording could be better. --> Most of these deaths occurred near Galveston, Texas, after storm surge inundated the coastline with 8 to 12 ft (2.4 to 3.7 m) of water. Something like that?
  • The Gulf of Mexico shoreline of Galveston island was subsequently raised by 17 ft (5.2 m) and a 10 mi (16 km) seawall erected. - link to the seawall
  • The first observed hurricane of the season, the tropical cyclone was first detected by a ship well east of the Windward Islands on August 27. - avoid the two "first"s. I would rewrite this to put the "first hurricane of the season" part last. Maybe start the paragraph - "On August 27, 1900, a ship east of the Windward Islands detected a tropical cyclone, the first observed during the annual season.
  • Good note about date/timing
  • Did the hurricane dissipate near Iceland, or were they last observed there?
  • "It is likely that much of South Florida experienced tropical storm force winds, though mostly minor damage occurred overall." - I'd avoid the "overall", or at least specify minor damage in Florida.
  • "Hurricane force winds and storm surge inundated portions of southern Louisiana, though no significant structural damage or fatalities were reported" - again, add "in the state" or something
  • "Further north" - farther. I think I point this out in every GAN :P Far is distance. Further is to emphasize a point.
  • "and because wireless telegraphy was in its infancy, these reports were not available until the ships put in at a harbor" --> maybe "ships docked at harbor"?
  • The lead mentions the trajectory through the Caribbean Sea and DR landfall, but not in the MH. How come? Likewise, you mention Gulf of St. Lawrence there, but not in the MH.
  • "Assumption became fact as the official government reports stated, wrongly, that the storm was traveling northeast in the Atlantic." - who said this quote? And is there a way to say it without the quote?
  • The storm was reported to be north of Key West, Florida, on September 6, - you end with a comma, but it looks like the end of the sentence. Also... was that still the case after reanalysis? The track looks like it goes west of the island.
  • I had actually thought about getting rid of that sentences for that very reason. Apparently the storm was (at the time) thought to have made landfall in southwest Florida. So obviously this is inaccurate. The source also does not name a specific ship or anything like that. Should I maybe just mention that the storm bypassed Key West on that date?--12george1 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the early morning hours of September 7, the Weather Bureau office in New Orleans, issued a report of heavy damage along the Louisiana and Mississippi coasts. Details of the storm were not widespread; damage to telegraph lines limited communication. The Weather Bureau's central office in Washington, D.C., ordered storm warnings raised from Pensacola, Florida, to Galveston. - why is this is in the MH? Ditto The Galveston Weather Bureau office raised its double square flags; a hurricane warning was in effect.
  • due to tensions remaining in the aftermath of the Spanish–American War - "remaining" seems unnecessary
  • "To them, the storm appeared to have begun a long turn or 'recurve' that would take it first into Florida, then drive it northeast toward an eventual exit into the Atlantic." - who said this, and why is the quote in the article instead of written into your own words?
  • It seemed a bit redundant in conjunction with the previous sentence when I rewrote this without quotes, so I merged the two sentences instead--12george1 (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the preps section: On the morning of September 8, the swells continued despite only partly cloudy skies. - this feels odd, separate from what came earlier in the paragraph. You should move the forecasting stuff either to the first paragraph or its own one. But also, you mention the swells continuing, but never mentioned them in the first place. It's just odd.
  • The Cline controversy seems a little clunky. Too many "claimed", "called into question", "Supporters point." IDK, it just seems off. Maybe I've been staring at my computer too long. I'll pick this review up later, but good job so far. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " and up to 2.6 in (66 mm) of rainfall recorded on the island." - is it "up to", or was 2.6 in of rainfall actually recorded? Likewise "up to 12.58 in (320 mm) in a 24‑hour period"
  • Hypothetically, there could have been more observations, but nothing mentions other reports of rainfall on Antigua. So I guess I should the latter--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Heavy rainfall fell - avoid "fall fell"
  • Watch out for overlinking in Impact section
  • I only found one example (storm surge). If there are other, can you point them out to me?--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • because the city had "weathered them all - again, quotes
  • It was actually a quote from the author of the article. Also kinda contradicts Cline's logic about how a strong hurricane wouldn't strike Galveston. So I decided it would be better to just delete it--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The hurricane left "considerable damage" in the Palm Beach area. - according to?
  • Winds and storm surge caused severe damage to rice crops, with at least 25% destroyed. - statewide?
  • Two men went missing and were presumed to have drowned after sailing away from Fort St. Philip and not returning in a timely manner.[51] However, they were both later found alive. - this seems misleading. The presumption of drowning occurred 119 years ago, so I don't think that's needed. Maybe say they were initially presumed drowned until they turned up? I'm not sure here.
  • with many cities reportedly nearly or completely losing all buildings or homes - awkwardly written
  • Streets were littered with branches from shade trees - so not just any tree, but a tree that gives shade? As in... most trees?
  • Modern estimates later placed the storm's central pressure at 930.9 mbar (27.49 inHg), but this was subsequently adjusted to the storm's official lowest measured central pressure of 935.7 mbar (27.63 inHg). - why even mention the 930.9 mbar if it was also adjusted? Because it was so long ago, "modern" can be any time since the 1950s. It just seems like a bit too much detail for the average reader to care, and I think it would be stronger just sticking with the official lowest pressure of 935.7 mbar. Also, what was the basis for that pressure reading? That could go in the MH.
  • The storm destroyed about 7,000 buildings of all uses in Galveston alone - I feel like this should be mentioned when you mentioned the destroyed houses. Have this sentence lead into "which included 3,636 destroyed homes."
  • I'm not a fan of mentioning the three different damage totals. The initial $25 million (from 118 years ago) lends well to the final damage total of $30 million by Isaac Cline, so I don't think both need to be mentioned. Then you can mention the breakdown in damage, which is rather useful to have.
  • Because of the destruction of the bridges to the mainland and the telegraph lines, no word of the city's destruction was able to reach the mainland. - I'd add "at first" or something to end. Eventually the word got out
  • A canvas conducted by the Morrison and Fourmy Company - canvas?
  • The source says "canvas", but I thin that would be a pretty uncommon use for that word. Survey?--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It is believed 8,000 people—20% of the island's population—had lost their lives. - all on Galveston?
  • There were some who died in nearby towns, but yes, this ~8,000 is for Galveston alone--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The extratropical remnants of the cyclone re-intensified to the equivalence of a tropical storm and continued to strengthen - that's not exactly true. The hurricane weakened into a TS before moving into a TS, and then a TD over Kansas. Maybe mention the restrengthening after you mention the Oklahoma part?
  • "A long bridge, along with a few train cars, were swept away." - where, and how long?
  • The city of Marshall experienced "the severest windstorm of the season" - according to?
  • 5 mi (8.0 km) - rounding
  • Losses Crystal Beach reached about $5,000. -grammar
  • with reportedly "hardly an apple left on a tree in the entire state" - according to?
  • Prior to the storm, the apple crop was considered the largest in years. - seems unnecessary
  • A new bathhouse at Harvard University lost a portion of its tin roof and its copper cornices. - the "new" seems unnecessary
  • Weird talking about something from 119 years ago as new, huh? :P--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any Maine impacts?
  • Not much. doesn't even have Maine newspapers for September 1900. I added the little bit that I found--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In Ontario, tides in Lake Ontario ranged from 8 to 10 ft (2.4 to 3.0 m) above normal, wreaked havoc on vessels, beaching several boats, destroying a number of boats, and setting some others adrift. - grammar is a bit off.
  • Peak winds reached 49–77 mph (79–124 km/h) in Toronto - if you're saying peak winds, why mention the low end of the range?
  • The majority of loss of life in Canada occurred due to numerous shipwrecks off the coasts of Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island. The overall death toll in Canada is estimated to be between 52 and 232, making this at least the eighth deadliest hurricane to affect Canada. The large discrepancy between the fatality figures is due to the fact that many people were reported missing in Saint Pierre and Miquelon - since St. Pierre and Miquelon isn't part of Canada, the deaths there shouldn't affect the Canadian death toll, right? Or, could you mention the death toll less the St. Pierre and Miquelon total?
  • I'm not sure if I can. The source says, "The Galveston hurricane was responsible for 52–232 deaths in Canada, mostly due to damage sustained by fishing and shipping vessels off Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. The large discrepancy between confirmed and unconfirmed deaths is almost entirely in the numbers of missing people from St. Pierre." So both totals are combined--12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The final death toll is not known with certainty, but the most conservative estimate is around 6,000. Most historians believe the loss of life to be in the area of 8,000 with some suggesting as many as 12,000 perished - you already covered this in impact
  • The authorities passed out free whiskey to sustain the distraught men conscripted for the gruesome work of collecting and burning the dead. - nothing is wrong with this sentence except for how harrowing it was. THE FEELS!
  • Reporter Winifred Bonfils, a young journalist working for William Randolph Hearst, was the first reporter on the line at the hurricane's ground zero in Galveston. I'd remove the first "reporter"
  • You want to remove a "reporter"? Sure thing, Mr. President :P --12george1 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Within three weeks, cotton was again being shipped out of the port. - within three weeks of the storm, or from September 12?
  • The Galveston city government was reorganized into a commission government - when?
  • including the 3,000 short tons (2,700 t) St. Patrick's Church. - grammar?
  • Maybe I was celebrating St. Patrick's Day? No wait... blame the template! :P

That should be it for the review. Great work on this very important storm, User:12george1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Destroyeraa, KN2731, SMB99thx, Chicdat, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, and Cyclone Toby: The article is, over a hundred kilobytes, at the point where it should be split. Because of the extensive damage/deaths in Texas, I am proposing it be split off from the rest of the article with only a few paragraphs remaining in the article. It has ~11 paragraphs by my count, and there were other significant effects like in Canada. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It’s 57.6 kb of readable text. That’s on the upper size limit, but considering the article mainly exists because of its TX impacts, I’d oppose splitting unless a lot of new information is found. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Lots of impacts in the Midwest, the Northest, and the 8th deadliest Canada hurricane. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose Storm’s name implies that most of the damage is in a Texas - Effects of the Galveston Hurricane in Texas sounds weird. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Destroyeraa: Effects of the 1947 Fort Lauradale hurricane in Florida. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Per sizing guidelines, that probably didn’t need to be split. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) Still oppose per Hink and Cyclonebiskit. The current article structure is fine, and splitting isn’t necessary. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – As Hink said it's on the upper-bound of recommended page size, but the article is unlikely to expand much beyond its current size. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - sorry. The article is large, but splitting it would make the main article basically a stub. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Strongly oppose a split as it would greatly imbalance the distribution of information within the article (see WP:PROPORTION). The primary area of impact is Texas; I see no reason why less significance should be placed on Texas impacts within this article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose – It's on the upper-bound of recommended page size, but given the historical nature of the article (and how much time has elapsed) it's unlikely to be expanded much as there is a limit to how much new data and information can be extracted or discovered from historical records; In addition the main reason for this article's notoriety was the size of the deathtoll on what was, at the time, one of Texas' leading cities.  nsaum75 [[User talk:nsaum75|[undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help)]] 13:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]