Talk:Hurricane Mitch/Archive 1

Death toll
The official NHC report on Mitch said that the official death toll stands at 9,086, but it also states that 9,191 were missing. This would bring the toll to 18,277. Those numbers have not been revised since the report, so I imagine that they still stand. Should the numbers in the article be revised?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can find some sources. Jdorje 01:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Revisited
So now we have 11,000-20,000 based on 10,000 confirmed dead (post-TCR numbers) and 8,000-some missing. But shouldn't we say "missing and presumed dead" for these? — jdorje (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The numbers
Figuring out the death toll is very tricky. Unlike most hurricanes, we can't use the NHC's deadliest-hurricanes list as a source since it only goes through '96. The TCR will of course have some information but it is incomplete as the count was still ongoing. There is the NCDC page currently used as a source. Note that we can't just add these values together; the nic and hon values are obviously only accurate to within 100 so we have to round off the final value to the nearest 100 to, getting the same thing the NCDC page shows: 11,000. However the same source also shows 11,000-18,000 missing on top of the 11,000. If these are "presumed dead" then the final tally becomes 11,000-29,000. — jdorje (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think we can presume them dead. We could make a note of it in the impact section, but the death toll will probably never be known. This report says the Honduras total is around 5,500 deaths, less than the 6,500 that's listed in the article, and this site says Nicaragua was less as well. In addition, this government site gives 8,500 dead, in contradiction from the source I've been using. It's probably best to use the one we've been using, indicate those missing, and also indicate that sources vary, and the death toll will likely never be known. Hurricanehink 20:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So then what should be the final deaths in the infobox? Should we bump it to 11,000-18,000? — jdorje (talk) 23:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. I'll do it. Hurricanehink 00:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

New pic
New pic added. Looks similar to the infared version (it is in the same position!) - Irfan Faiz

ACE?
Does anyone have ACE statistics for this storm? I'm imagining it must be one of the biggest ever, possibly even over 100. --Mark J 22:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt it; it developed in the Caribbean and rapidly intensified and then spent much of its life as a weak system that drenched Central America with catastrophic results. I think Georges, and possibly even Bonnie, had higher ACE values. CrazyC83 01:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I tried calculating the ACE, and came up with 35.855. Can anyone verify this?WotGoPlunk 23:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Talk:Accumulated_cyclone_energy/Atlantic_by_year and Talk:Accumulated_cyclone_energy/Atlantic_by_ACE, that is correct. — jdorje (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable that this article was not in Spanish
I had to translate this article because in Spanish there wasn't. It's unbelievable because this hurricane made disaster primarily in Spanish-speaking territory. juan andrés 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Impact
Added more infomation in the impact section. Storm05 15:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Please double-check your spelling and grammar. &mdash; jdorje (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So...
So, what is the final landfall intensity of Mitch? I've seen it at five. Ive seen it at one. Whats the final call for this one? Cyclone1 20:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The landfall intensity was a Category 1, curtosy of the NHC Report. Hurricanehink 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The NHC report says Cat 2, actually (85 kt = 97.75 mph). I've changed the article to reflect that. — Cuivi é  nen , Saturday, 1 April 2006 @ 22:05 (UTC)


 * Crap! The NHC report actually says both. In the storm history, it says Cat. 2 (85 knots), while the best track says 70 knots at the Honduras landfall. What should we do about that discrepancy? Using the best track, the storm did weaken to Cat. 1 status at 6z before making landfall at 12z. I say we use the 70 knots from best track. Hurricanehink 22:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe send the NHC an email asking about it? They could have meant 85 mph in the written summary; 987 mbar is awfully high for a Cat 2. — Cuivi é  nen , Sunday, 2 April 2006 @ 01:30 (UTC)


 * I sent one. In the meantime I think we shoudl go with the entry in the table: 70 knots (80 mph). — jdorje (talk) 05:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * And I got a reply from Chris Landsea: "Yes, the "85 knots" in the text is a typo. 70 kt is correct." — jdorje (talk) 07:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Start-class?
Why is this article only rated Start-class? Surely it has enough information to be raised to B-class? --Coredesat 02:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Not enough info in the impact section. I am currently in the middle of a complete redo for this article, but school, college, work, and music keep interupting my Wikipedia time. You don't want to see me without 12 hours of Wikipedia per day... :) Hurricanehink 03:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Links

 * USACE
 * http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/apr99/story1.htm
 * http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/dec98/story1.htm
 * http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/pubs/mar99/story4.htm
 * http://www.honduras.com/weather/mitch.html - An insane number of photos...most copyrighted, but some are from the USACE. Check out this and this and this.

Pics
Here's some Mitch pictures I've uploaded. Feel free to add some of them in or add more to the list.
 * Damaged bridge in Tegucigalpa
 * Damage in Honduras city
 * Damage across Tegucigalpa
 * Cleanup in Tegucigalpa
 * More damage in Tegucigalpa
 * Damage in San Juancito
 * Mudslide in San Juancito
 * Deforestation across the country

Hurricanehink 21:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath
If possible, can someone else finish the Aftermath section? I finished everything else, but I am going away, and won't be able to help this. Hurricanehink 16:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually been surprisingly difficult finding information for such a damaging storm. Most google hits only come up with information we already have. I've added a little bit to it, but it's still lacking quite a lot. -Sorry forgot to add source, I'll put it on now. WotGoPlunk 21:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for your info? Hurricanehink 21:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A-Class?
This must be an A-class by now. Almost every section has been expanded. 00:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll ask on the Assessment page. Hurricanehink 00:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. Aftermath has to be expanded quite a lot still. Immense improvement from the original article, however. WotGoPlunk 16:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Better? Hurricanehink 22:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Detail
Before I dive into the aftermath, I was thinking, how detailed should it be? Should we go all out, similar to Katrina, and make some subpages? Currently, I believe Katrina is the only hurricane with sub-pages, and Mitch wouldn't be a bad choice. Some sub-pages could be Hurricane Mitch aid from the United States, and other similar pages. It might be too much having all of Hurricane Mitch on one article, but then again, we could summarize the information. Still, in googling "Hurricane Mitch" and "Aftermath", you get 72,000 results. Hurricanehink 20:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say not to go too crazy with the subpages. Katrina IMO has too many of them. Keep it within the article or limit it to one or two. Just my opinion though. WotGoPlunk 20:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's worry about filling this one first, and then iff necessary, there can be more. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 20:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okey. Hurricanehink 20:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How much more should I put in? Is the expand tag still needed? How far until FA? Hurricanehink 22:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Diseases
Would the deaths from the dieseases caused by Mitch count as indirect deaths? Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say yes. Hurricanehink 21:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review
OK, I put this up for peer review, located here. Put any comments on there from now on so we can get this to FA status. Hurricanehink 15:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK... Given that 2005 is done, I'm putting this up for FAC. Hurricanehink 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Wind Speed
It says on the web page that Hurricane Mitch's maximum wind speed was 180 mph (290 kph). However, the NOAA has specific information about Hurricane Mitch, and in the satellite photo of Hurricane Mitch at the top of the page it specifically says that Mitch's maximum wind speed was 195 mph (314 kph). Therefore, the 180 mph maximum wind speed is incorrect, and it should be 195 mph. I don't understand why the web page says 180 mph, when in the satellite photo taken by the NOAA it says 195 mph down in the bottom right hand corner. On the web page, it should say 195 mph (314 kph).

68.198.94.66 01:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Where? Do you have a link to it? There are a few NOAA pages, but all that's said on all of them is that the storm caused winds of 155 knots, which is 180 mph. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The NHC, a branch of NOAA, says it is 155 kt. I'm fairly certain that if they had changed their info, they would have updated the most referenced document for Hurricane Mitch out there, the Tropical Cyclone Report. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 04:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The image the anon is referring to is the one of Hurricane Mitch in the infobox here. Pity the source info doesn't state anything about the image...--Nilfanion (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, doing some image sleuthing, I found this site, and the image came from there. Ironically enough, the image says 195 MPH, but the site says 180. Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found the image too. Reading through the TCR I think the 195 mph might be associated with "The highest 700-mb flight-level wind report was 168 knots at 1900 UTC 26 October by the USAFR." Dropsonde data mentioned in the discussions also showed >155 kts but they didn't seriously contemplate a higher windspeed by the look of it. However as this article is going to the main page soon perhaps we should change the image to one which doesn't have apparently contradictory info?--Nilfanion (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Which image would work? Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Same site, subtly different image? --Nilfanion (talk) 07:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * All right. (The eye looks a bit weird, though). Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I was bold. I like this image because it's colors seem more natural. Though technically its not at peak intensity, it's quite close. TimL 19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's good, but is there one where the hurricane is closer to the center of the image, and also doesn't have the white text in the corners? Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I can crop it like I did for Hurricane Wilma TimL 19:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I cropped it a little but not too much, I didn't want to cut out too much of the storm. Thoughts? TimL 19:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Duh, I guess I could have cropped the origional. :) What do you all think? TimL 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Still a little off-centered, but good job with the cropping. What's wrong with an image like this? Though it has words, it's just a NOAA logo. Floyd and Iniki both have it too. There's not that many words here, and nothing contradicting the article. Plus, the storm is centered, and while near peak intensity. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That appears to be the same image, but cropped better (note the time stamp and the satellite it was taken from, they are the same as the image I uploaded) TimL 20:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I would add though that although mine is not centered I do like that more of the storm circulation is shown, that is, the large geographical extent is shown, but I'm splitting hairs perhaps. TimL 20:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency of units
Some distance units (for rainfall) are given only in imperial (see the honduras section). Some monetary units are given only in 2005 USD ($7 billion in damages in the intro), while others are given only in 1998 USD ($5 billion in damages in the impact). I'd say in all cases, both forms should be given. — jdorje (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoops, I thought I got all of them. I'll try and get the rest of them later on. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 11:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

semiprot
multiple vandalisms from many ips, semiprot? ST47 22:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not that bad. Tito xd (?!?) 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Strength
An anon made an update to add a ref to, which says the maximum sustained speeds were 195mph. The article says 180mph. Who's wrong? --Golbez 00:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The OSEI site is probably wrong. The best track says 155 knots. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guanaja?
The section on Guanaja seems to come out of the blue, and is written with a clear anti-government point of view.

Introductory paragraph
In the introductory paragraph the following statements are made: "Hurricane Mitch was the strongest Atlantic hurricane ever observed in the month of October, though it has since been surpassed by Hurricane Wilma of the 2005 season." "The hurricane also tied for the fourth most intense Atlantic hurricane in recorded history, but it has since dropped to seventh." I think it would be nice if there were citations supporting both of those statements. Also perhaps a little more information regarding those two statements would be nice. Is there a Wikipage already in existence which has the rest of the rankings or a description of how the rankings are compiled? That would be interesting info too. Shelshula (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Mitch
There is something wrong with this paragraph:

"The origin of Hurricane Mitch can be traced to a tropical wave that moved off the coast of South America on October 10. It moved westward across the shear-ridden Atlantic Ocean, and remained disorganized until entering the Caribbean Sea on October 18. "

I assume that it meant to say that it moved off the coast of Africa rather than South Americs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.96.17 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 29 July 2008


 * Fixed, thanks for catching that. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)