# Talk:Hurricane Allen

The article says Allen "brushed Jamaica" and "struck Haiti".  But aren't these two events out of order?

So fix it already. Jdorje 01:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I will fix it. :) : Irfanfaiz at (GMT 8+) 12.44PM

I found that track image on another website which is a public one. I don't remember what page did i get it from but the image is in a public domain. So i got to reupload it in what liesence (sorry for the spelling) :P : Irfanfaiz at (GMT 8+) 12.42PM

What's this storm's ACE? I bet it's pretty high. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure exactly, but I would assume it is at least in the 45-55 range...probably around where Isabel is. CrazyC83 05:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Was Allen an annular hurricane? Is that why it kept its intensity for so long? CrazyC83 05:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely.  And remember it did weaken quickly at the end. Jdorje 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

More specific intro, better structure in the impact. Jdorje 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro's fine, needs more sources. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The intro doesn't give any mention of where the storm hit.  And the article says that 250 people died, but it doesn't say where (except for a few deaths in Texas and Louisiana).  We can't even expand the intro until more research is done. — jdorje (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section since we now know Allen has lost his crown to Emily. But is it still worth mentioning that Allen held the record until 2005? Pobbie Rarr 17:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It can be worth mentioning.  All it needs is one sentence in the storm history section (it doesn't need its own section). — jdorje (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Was there any impact by Allen in this country? I can't seem to find anything. If not, the impact section should specifically mention Haiti, not Hispaniola. Pobbie Rarr 18:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

As a category five hurricane at the time, Allen should've been impacting the Dominican Republic. However, as evidenced with multiple category five cyclones (Andrew, Dean, Felix), not all Category five hurricanes need to be particularly large in diameter, and no sources want to talk about if Allen hit the Dominican Republic. Daniel J. Clark (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay a bit of a problem here. I make it as follows:
220 (Haiti) + 18 (St. Lucia) + 17 (Louisiana) + 8 (Jamaica) + 7 (Texas) + 3 (Cuba) + 1 (Guadeloupe) = 274
Yet nowhere reports a total this high. What are the best figures to use? Pobbie Rarr 19:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that the 236-261 figure as quoted by the NHC is for direct deaths only. Then the 274 figure must include both direct & indirect deaths. How many indirect deaths does that make? Pobbie Rarr 19:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image for the info box, as it shows Allen at peak intensity. Consequently, the IR landfall image has been moved to the appropriate part of the Storm History section.
If there's a problem with this, let me know. :) Pobbie Rarr 02:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Since NOAA has added a fair amount of old data to the GIBBS project, I've found a full-hemisphere shot of this storm at 1800Z on August 7, the time that it was at 190 mph and 899 mb.  (Click on that image for a full version of the file.)  The storm itself is rather small; it isn't a high-res satellite like some of the modern ones.  But since there is a dearth of images of older hurricanes at peak intensity, I thought there might be some use for this.  I can crop the image to show only the hurricane, only the Caribbean, or whatever is needed. PolitiCalypso 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
A coworker of mine brought in some old satellite imagery today, including a few shots of Allen.  I'll place them within the same subdirectory that the TC rainfall climatology images lie on Wednesday, in case anyone would like to use them. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

yea, the article is really short. can i change its status? it realllllly doesn't look like c-status.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viennaiswaiting (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC) 

Length is not a criteria for class, or some of our recent GA/FA articles within the met and TC projects would be C.  If it is mostly complete with most of the relevant sections and a good amount of referencing, C class is fine.  B class is used for well-referenced articles that are essentially good enough for GA.  If you see a lot of missing information, be bold and add it.  No one owns any of these articles.  It's wikipedia.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
It turns out the preparations section was missing.  Adding the section added 50% more content to the article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion - Over the last couple of nights ive been going through the TC articles and seeing the damages inflated to 2006 USD. I have been changing these to use the inflate templates which are regually updated and are too 2010 USD AFAIK. So i think it may be a good idea to use them in this article but i want to check this out before implementing them.Jason Rees (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
That is used in the infobox of this article already.  Within the article, it's best to just use the unadjusted dollars, and specify the year.  That way, you're not having to change the article annually.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Thats fair enough - though id just like to point out that you wouldnt have to change the article annually as the coding that i am putting in to articles updates it automatically. ie ${{Formatprice|{{Inflation|US|3600000|2001}}}}{{#time:Y}} USD also i only add this personally after the original damage totals. This is how it looks in another article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Isabel_in_North_Carolina.Jason Rees (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Five more references are needed where the fact tags have been places, and some expansion is necessary for the lead, though how much I am not sure.  Once this is done, this article can be submitted for GAN.  Since this is one of the higher importance articles within the TC project, this is an important goal to accomplish.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a deadlink on ref #2 in which I couldn't find an archived version on web.archive.org:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/tracks1851to2008_atl_reanal.txt
–MuZemike 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed: it goes dead once a year as the previous years BT is added.Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.  I believe it went dead after the GAN submission.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem - i believe the 2009 BT was added around the 6/3/10.Jason Rees (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
You and your European date format...  =)  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Allen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Allen was as an early Cape Verde-type hurricane which originated from a tropical wave within the deep tropics. "was as an"? "a tropical wave within the deep tropics"?  Done
The tropical disturbance which would become Allen moved off the coast of Africa on July 30, and was upgraded to a tropical depression on August 1. Wehave a lot of tropicals here, can this be rewritten a little?  Done
Allen moved westward at an unusually high speed of 15 to 20 knots (28 to 37 km/h), becoming a hurricane on the event on August 2 and... "event"?  Done
This whole passage (the first in meteorlogicla history) could be rewritten more elegantly.  Done
The eye passed just south of Hispaniola and just north of Jamaica as a Category 4 hurricane.  How about using just "between"?  Done
:Allen again weakened to a Category 4 storm through interactions with Mexico,  sounds a little vague to me, Remdember that I am the average reader, don't know much about meteorology (actually I did study it at school - but that was some time ago!)  Done
Shortly before landfall, dry air aloft in the Gulf caused the massive storm to weaken substantially.   "dry air aloft"  Did you just mean to sya "high"?  Done
n Barbados, preliminary damages were estimated to be $1.5 million (1980 USD). About 500 houses were either damaged or destroyed, total damages was moderate.  "total damages was moderate"?  Done
Although the damages was minor, "was minor"?  Done
In Martinique, damages was somewhat extensive as the storm ?  Done
However, the density of smaller-sized Damselfishes increased after Allen offshore Jamaica ?? Please rewrite in plain English.  This is all looking like very careless thrown together writing.  Done
Also, though there were no reports of significant property damage in Cuba, three deaths were attributed to Allen ??  Done
Areas of northeastern Mexico saw heavy rains with the passage of Allen, with the locally heaviest amounts exceeding 7 inches (180 mm). was was  Done
In Texas, the storm surge was reported as high as 12 feet (3.7 m) at Port Mansfield, though it may have been higher because the highest surges occurred in unpopulated and unmonitored sections of the Texas coast. Surely "may have been higher in other places"?  Done
Please go through this artcile again, line by line, read it out loud to yourself.  It very much looks like something thrown together without much thought and the writing is nowhere near "reasonably good" at the moment.  Done

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I fixed one dead link
The article is adequately referenced.
Sources appear to be WP:RS
Sources appear to back up statements.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
On hold for seven days for the above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think this meets the "reasonably well written" criteria now. Of course, as always, there is room for improvement.  If you wish to take this further to WP:FAC, it would be ebst top get a WP:Peer review first. I am happy to list this as a good article. Congratulations. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I have fixed the issues you presented.  Strike out what has been fixed to your satisfaction, so I know what is left to reword.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

An internet user added this line in recently.  How would we go about proving or disproving this/removing it from the article?  My guess is that it would require several references, no?  Would the NCDC merger of the global databases count as a reliable and original source here?  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I dont bye that no other storms worldwide had winds of 190mph, but the NCDC merger of the databases is otherwise known as IBTRACS isnt it? in which case that would be a reliable reference since they have been approved by the RSMC WMO TCWC's.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The US damages for Allen are a bit confusing, all reports issued by the NHC after the fact give 300 mill for Allens damage, however, the TCR gives 600 mill but because it has a note in the margin querying it i didnt go with it but the more i think about the damage total the more i think it has to be an early example of the doubling up policy employed by NHC today but can anyone clarify this at all?.Jason Rees (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is because Patricia was NOT an Atlantic hurricane. It holds that record for "Pacific hurricane" and "Hurricane in general".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:587:103:F233:DD3A:FE2:434F:80EB (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2016 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Allen. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/nwstechmemos/techmemo18.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103233849/http://www.depts.ttu.edu/nwi/Pubs/Reports/D8-10-80%20Hurr%20Allen.pdf to http://www.depts.ttu.edu/nwi/Pubs/Reports/D8-10-80%20Hurr%20Allen.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060723034359/http://www.weather.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf to http://www.weather.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf
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) 21:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Allen. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527150732/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E8.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E8.html
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) 07:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The map plotting the storm's track and intensity needs to be updated because now Category 5 hurricanes are labeled purple, Category 4 hurricanes are labeled red, and Category 3 hurricanes are labeled dark orange. The Corvette ZR1 (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source for this amount? I’ve looked around online and have seen anywhere from $1 million to $250 million. Was this number a mish-mash of different Storm events database listings? Dym75 (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dym75 I found this article from NOAA which says "nearly a third of [$300 million] as a result of a hurricane-spawned tornado in Austin". The NCEI Storm Event Database lists $250 million for one tornado passing through Austin, which I guess is where all the $250 million estimates are sourced to. However, seeing the damage figures in that table are all variants of 2.5/25/250, I'm pretty sure these figures are the midpoints of ranges (5–50, 50–500, 500–5000 etc) previously used to estimate the degree of severity of damage; these ranges even appear at the bottom of the old storm data publications (I accessed the August 1980 one from here). Another estimate I found is $50 million mentioned in this paper. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for responding (and, yes, those damned codes, lol). I feel as if many of these pages are loaded with inaccuracies with regard to damage totals. While I didn’t keep track of all the (possible? Likely?) mistakes I discovered in recent weeks, I do remember that actual damages for Great Barrington and West Stockbridge (MA) both ran lower than those “averages” in the Storm Data reports. But I also know that some folks are married to whatever the Storm Event Database says, even if it’s probably off. I think other NWS papers - like the one you linked to at the end -are probably more accurate than the aforementioned $250M, and I wish we could review these a bit more. Just my humble opinion. Dym75 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)


### Hurricane Allen