# Talk:1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane

This review is transcluded from Talk:1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Link the season in the first sentence
"The storm produced extensive damage and at least one drowning as it crossed the Bahamas. " - I feel like this is out of order. This should go before the Florida landfall sentence
"While few ships encountered the small storm, it regained hurricane force on August 4" - the "while" suggests some sort of contrast in the sentence, but neither have anything to do with each other. Try something like "Few ships encountered the small storm as it regained hurricane force on August 4", or something
Is the third paragraph of the lead appropriate for the lead? The lead is supposed so summarize what is below. Maybe create a paragraph under "meteorological history" for "legacy and records", or "historical context", or something? However, I am concerned that you are citing HURDAT. While the information may be technically true, we generally discourage information that isn't stated directly from HURDAT. See here and here.
"becoming a tropical storm as it did so at 0000 UTC on July 25" - "as it did so" is redundant
"60-mile-per-hour (97 km/h)" - how come it's written out? Previously, every instance was mph
"75 mph (121 km/h)," - make sure both values are rounded
For every UTC, you need to have a colon (12:00 UTC). During Cyclone Joy's FAC, we got some clarification on the issue from WP:MOSTIME.
"Now hooking west-southwest, the storm quickly atrophied as it moved inland and vanished over easternmost Nuevo León by 1800 UTC." - given that you hadn't said the date for a few sentences, I think it would be helpful to clarify the date one last time
"but caused only minimal damage there, and no deaths were initially confirmed.[14] Later reports, however, indicated more severe damage elsewhere in the islands and at least one death from drowning." - why is it important to mention the initial lack of deaths?
"The state oversaw and supervised the evacuations for the first time in the area's history" - this is a pretty important claim. It was really the first time that the state supervised evacuations? Not during any of the 1920s storms?
"but many others did not, fearing little damage from the weak storm." - I wouldn't say "fearing" is the right word here
Given how the preparations are interspersed with the impact, have you considered splitting off the section? It would help break up the huge section better, and a lot of the preparations are similar.
"and destroyed a structure at the former place" - if this is Stuart, you should say that again, as it was 25 words previous and it could be confusing
"Shrubs and roofs in the city were damaged as well, but utilities were quickly revived as the worst of the storm passed." - utilities like power and water? If so, say that they were affected. Otherwise, it seems you're talking about shrubs and roofs being revived.
"Despite precautions, little immediate damage from wind and rain resulted in the Everglades and near Lake Okeechobee." - why the "despite"?
"dead fronds from palms" - maybe link "frond"? I didn't know what it was
"clocked 40-mile-per-hour (64 km/h) winds around 1445 UTC on July 31" - why did you spell it out again?
[1] - here is a bit more info for Texas.
All in all, the article is very well done. It feels like a very thorough and detailed account of the storm. Most of my comments are fairly nitpicky stuff - ordinarily I wouldn't do it for a GA review, but you indicated you were interested in A-class or FAC, so I went ahead and reviewed if it was an FAC. I very much appreciate your work on historic Florida hurricanes, it isn't unnoticed at all! If you have any questions, let me know, but I think the above should be easy to fix. Great work again! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing missing is the info from that last link I posted. It provides a Texas damage total and winds in Texas. Otherwise, everything looks good! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:34, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Since CVW mentioned wanting to take this to FAC, I thought I'd review it as such.

"The 1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane was the first of two Atlantic hurricanes to strike the Treasure Coast region of Florida in the very active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season. It was one of two storms that year to inflict hurricane-force winds over South Texas, causing significant damage there; the other occurred in early September." - so this is a funny one, because it almost implies that the same storm, in September, affected the Treasure Coast and South Texas, but that wasn't the case. Maybe simplify it to "The 1933 Florida–Mexico hurricane was the first of four Atlantic hurricanes to hit the United States during the very active 1933 Atlantic hurricane season." Then you can mention the other storms later on.
"The fifth tropical cyclone of the year, it formed east of the Lesser Antilles on July 24, rapidly strengthening as it moved west-northwest. As it passed over the islands" - link Lesser Antilles, and maybe specify which islands it passed over
"The storm produced extensive damage and at least one drowning as it crossed the Bahamas." - so little note right here. "produced" is a very generic word for storms, and here it implies that the storm produced one drowning. I suggest slight rewording to "As it crossed the Bahamas, the storm drowned at least one person and produced extensive damage."
" Few ships encountered the small storm as it regained hurricane status on August 4, just a day before striking northern Mexico with winds of 90 mph (145 km/h)—making it close to a modern-day Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale." - several things here, mostly you're trying to do too much. First, "few ships encountered"... is that part important for the lead? Unless you want to emphasize a ship measurement, or ships being capsized, I don't think you need to mention the ships. But the storm being small, that's useful. Also, just "northern Mexico" is pretty vague, considering the previous sentence was happy to call it Florida and not "southern United States". Maybe find a way to mention the state or the landfall location here.
"While monetary losses in Mexico were unclear, the storm did at least $3,000,000 in damages in the United States, measured in contemporary U.S. dollars." - rather than the "measured in contemporary U.S. dollars", I suggest adding a note saying something like "All currency totals are unadjusted for inflation." I have a note like that in Hurricane Camille.
You mentioned moving/changing the historical context section, and I agree about that. The stuff about 1837 can probably be streamlined, and hopefully there'll one day be an article for the 1837 season. I think the article will work fine starting with the met history
"At 12:00 UTC on July 24, HURDAT initialized a tropical depression some 430 miles (690 km) east of Saint Lucia in the Windward Islands." - this isn't the best way to start off a met history, since linking HURDAT just opens a wikilink wormhole. Unfortunately there isn't much more known about the storm, so we don't know for sure if it developed any earlier, or if it was from a tropical wave or anything, which we would probably know by a decade or two later. I suggest something like this, see if this format works:
"The origins of the storm were from a tropical depression that was located on July 24 about 430 mi (690 km) east of Saint Lucia in the Windward Islands. This was based on analysis of ship reports and evidence of a closed low pressure area, as conducted by the Hurricane Research Division in 2012." This is way of mentioning the important stuff, but it might still be too much. I always focus on getting the beginning, the landfall, the peak, and the ending right, so I'll be focusing a lot on that.
(This was at the time that another tropical system formed over 450 mi (725 km) east of Bermuda.)  - I don't think this needs to be in parenthesis, that is interesting and gives context to it being a busy season.
"However, ships and weather stations did not observe gales until later that day, so the winds in HURDAT were interpolated, but based on available data, the storm strengthened steadily." - get rid of the first "however", then I suggest either splitting it or adding a semicolon after "interpolated", and adding the however there.
", 12 hours earlier than once designated in HURDAT" - this seems trivial
"As the storm neared Saint Thomas, the island experienced northeast winds of 60 mph (97 km/h)." - part of this seems like impact, but also, did the storm actually hit St Thomas or just pass near by?
"On its west-northwest course, the storm—now equivalent to a Category 1 hurricane—missed Puerto Rico to its northeast" - the previous paragraph already established that it was a hurricane.
"On July 27, the cyclone brushed Grand Turk and the Caicos, producing winds visually estimated at 85 mph (137 km/h) on the former island, with a peripheral pressure of 995 mb (29.37 inHg)." - can you be more specific than "brushed"
"Based on ship reports, the storm made its only landfall in the United States on Jupiter Island, between Port Salerno and Hobe Sound, Florida, around 16:00 UTC on July 30.[4] Some hours earlier, the American steamship El Almirante encountered hurricane-force winds—the only such instance at sea in the storm—concurrent with a pressure of 998 mb (29.46 inHg).[6][10] Another ship nearby made a reading of 992 mb (29.29 inHg) coincident with winds of 50 mph (80 km/h), hinting that it was taken inside the eye of the storm; calculations by researchers determined that the central pressure was 988 mb (29.18 inHg) at the time and at landfall in Florida.[5] While this supported winds of only tropical storm force (70 mph (115 km/h)), the storm had a small radius of outermost closed isobar embedded in a ridge of high pressure, so winds in Florida were deemed to be 75 mph (120 km/h), affirming earlier reports that listed the storm as a hurricane at landfall."
So most of the third MH paragraph is about the hurricane's landfall in Florida: how it was known to be a hurricane, and where it moved ashore. While some of that info is useful, not all of it is, and it's a lot of technical information too. The part about the ship recording hurricane-force winds is less about the landfall, and considering how the second MH paragraph also talks about evidence of hurricane-force winds, I suggest that go there. In fact, if you streamline this whole section, then I think the Florida landfall could be added to the second paragraph. The part of "Another ship nearby" could imply either at sea, or near the coast, so not really sure the relevance. And also, the part about "small radius of outermost closed isobar embedded in a ridge of high pressure" is too much jargon to be useful to your average reader. You could probably mention somewhere else that it was a small hurricane. I won't give you the exact wording, but see what you can do about this part of the met history.
"From this point" - poor way to start a paragraph. I suggest something like "Once the storm entered the Gulf of Mexico". Also, just as a general rule, you focus more on the documentation of the storm than talking about the storm itself, and the final MH paragraph is a good example. "the storm began a persistent west-southwest motion that continued for the rest of its life cycle" - this is good writing for example, and is useful to the reader for what actually happened. The follow up could then be describing that there were few ships to accurately discern intensity, and then the evidence that it was weaker.
"Anemometers in Brownsville, Texas, verified a landfall near Playa Lauro Villar, Tamaulipas, just south of the Rio Grande, near 01:00 UTC on August 5." - similar as above, it's more about the documentation than what actually happened. If you reverse the sentence structure around, you get something stronger like:
"Around 01:00 UTC on August 5, the hurricane made landfall near Playa Lauro Villar, Tamaulipas, just south of the Rio Grande, as verified by anemometers in Brownsville, Texas."
"Based on the data, scientists ascertained a radius of maximum wind of about 30 mi (50 km) as the eye made landfall." - minor note, but the reference doesn't actually talk about the eye. It's tricky getting the wording right for older storms, because you don't want to rely too heavily on documentation, but at the same time you can't assume stuff either. I looked in the reanalysis file for a mention of "eye" or "calm" but didn't see it, unless I missed something, instead seeing "radius of maximum winds". And it's reasonable that means the eyewall, but it's possible for an area to get the strongest winds but not the eyewall. Kinda a nitpick here but I want to get it right.
"Now hooking west-southwest, the storm quickly atrophied as it moved inland and vanished over easternmost Nuevo León by 18:00 UTC on August 5." - might be worth mentioning that metadata specifically mentions the higher terrain of Mexico when discussing the storm's dissipation. Could be worth adding.
Can you double check if ref 8 is working? That's the link for the MWR. If you want, you can cite all of the MWR links to the season document - [2] - not as ideal since the July one specifically talks about this storm.
"Although the storm affected several Caribbean islands, the Turks and Caicos, and the Bahamas, preparations there, if any, were unclear." - not worth mentioning IMO.
"Fearing flooding, authorities were empowered by Florida governor David Sholtz to evacuate over 4,200–5,000 residents, most of whom were black farm workers, from low-lying areas around Lake Okeechobee to elevated locations." - were there any mentions in the sources that they feared a repeat of the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane flooding? Also, if you have "over", you don't need the 4,200-5,000 range, you can say "over 4,200 residents". Also I suggest rewording to avoid passive voice. For example:
Florida governor David Sholtz empowered authorities to evacuate..."
"The evacuations took place in the communities of Belle Glade, Pahokee, Canal Point, Okeechobee, and Clewiston." - should probably be moved next to when you mention the evacuation of over 4,200 people.
I hate to ask because I doubt it, but could you find any preparations for Mexico?
"Throughout the hurricane's path from the Caribbean, to Florida, and finally into Texas and Mexico, 39 people were killed. 31 deaths occurred in Mexico,[22] six in Saint Kitts,[23] and one in both the Bahamas and Texas.[24][11]" - I suggest moving all of the refs to the end for organizational purposes. Also, fix your source for the Mexico death toll, since the one right now only says seven deaths in Monterrey. There might've been 31 deaths in Mexico but not according to the source available.
"Although figures from Mexico were unavailable, total losses from the storm in the United States reached about $3 million, inclusive of Florida and Texas, though figures for the latter state varied from $500,000 to $1.75 million, according to various sources." - remove the Mexico portion
"As it passed over the Lesser Antilles, the storm caused at least six deaths on the island of Saint Kitts—then known as Saint Christopher Island[29]—and the Virgin Islands reported torrential rains,[23] though no damage was reported. " - too much for one sentence. I think you should split the Virgin Islands part. Also, the article needs some kind of effects in St. Kitts. That seems like a pretty major omission in the article, since there were six deaths there.
What about effects in Puerto Rico?
Even though it's only a few lines, I think the Bahamas are separate enough that you should have a separate paragraph for Bahamas and Turks/Caicos. Double check for more info in the Bahamas.
I suggest adding a general paragraph for the beginning of Florida, instead of just starting with "wind damage was generally minimal", which immediately downplays what the storm did, instead of setting up the information more neutrally. "While the hurricane moved across Florida, it produced a variety of effects including strong winds, heavy rainfall, rough surf, etc." Typically, I like giving examples of meteorological observations here, such as the highest recorded wind speeds, heaviest rainfall, if there were any tornadoes, rough surf, storm surge, etc. That's a way of setting up the storm's impacts by first indicating what it did. The crop damage could probably be its own paragraph, just not the first one IMO.
"Reports from Jupiter detailed a town almost "cut off" by floodwaters.[41] A washout affected a 70-foot (21 m) section of track bed on the Florida East Coast Railway in Port Salerno, halting three passenger trains for a combined 7.5 hours." - this seems to be some of the most significant impacts caused by the hurricane. So perhaps, if you reorder the impacts like I suggested having the first paragraph be about general meteorological observations, then the second one should focus on the flooding impacts, including the railroad damage, the roads being covered, etc.
"rent apart tree limbs, tore off roofs, and cracked plate glass windows" - sorry, rent?
Since the storm hit Mexico, shouldn't the Mexico section go before the Texas section?
Speaking of Mexico, have you attempted to do any kind of search in Spanish, or search for local newspapers in Mexico?
Those are my main notes. CapeVerdeWave (talk · contribs), lemme know what you think. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)