This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1970 Bhola cyclone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
1970 Bhola cyclone was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 13, 2005, November 13, 2006, November 13, 2007, November 13, 2008, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2010, November 13, 2011, November 12, 2013, November 12, 2017, November 12, 2020, and November 12, 2023. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this article may be wrong. Can anyone confirm that this disaster is most generally known as the 'Bhola cyclone'. I'm not finding many Google references to it under that name, and the cyclone + tidal wave affected a much larger area. In the meantime, I've moved to page to '1970 Bhola cyclone' to conform to the style of other natural disaster articles and because cyclones in the area of the Bay of Bengal occur nearly every year. -- Solipsist 09:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cut this text:
because [1] refers to three earthquakes with higher numbers of dead (the source given there is Catalog of significant earthquakes 2000 BC–1979, including Quantative Casualties and Damage, NOAA World Data Center, 1981). If famines and epidemics count as natural disasters — which they do according to the Wikipedia article — then there have been many much more deadly than any earthquake or storm. Gdr 17:49, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
The official figure for death toll is 500,000, according to Banglapedia (see [2]). I updated the figure in the article. I agree that the real number is not known and can be higher, the region being one of the most densely populated in the world. -- Ragib 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I presume the figure of 500,000 made it the deadliest, and not the "other estimates"? Beetle B. 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the 1931 Huang He flood is generally considered to be the worst disaster in recorded history. At least from everything I've read. jcomp489
this is not like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake' comments. -- Solipsist 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we should change the 500,000 deaths to 500,000+, since we do not know the exact number. HurricaneGeek { User talk:HurricaneGeek} — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Per the WMO, most reliable sources back up the death toll of 300,000. I quote: However, less regulated sites such as Wikipedia consistently state 500,000 people dead. Unfortunately, these sites claiming a 500,000 death toll list as source weblinks which are dead or inactive or, as one committee member noted, “part of the ‘grey’ literature.” Consequently, given the consistency in the reviewed professional literature (particularly articles dating to times just after the catastrophe), the committee recommended acceptance of the estimated 300,000 value as best available estimate of the Great Bhola Cyclone mortality. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
why is it showing an all depression? Irfanfaiz 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
's winds, but rather due to the tidal bore that swept the coastal areas. And it doesn't come gradually, but rather is like a tsunami. So, it is of course justifiable that many people were asleep at the time. -- Ragib 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I found it in a book that it is 919 mb...
Expand intro and more impact. Storm05 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to do all this myself (at least not right away), but this article needs to be restructured similarly to other tropical cyclone articles (see Cyclone Mala, Hurricane Isabel, Tropical Storm Bilis). It needs separate impact and storm history sections. -- Core desat 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nilfanion, great rewrite. Just copyedit it to ensure flow, and potentially add damage images. Also, add 2006 USD when it is not included. Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't at least add the current units in, it makes copyediting a lot harder. — jdorje ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time. My comments are as follows:
There has been a good deal of work put into the article. Inline citations are generally very well put together (see a couple of issues below) and in most of the article there is clear prose and good grammar.
However as the assessor I will require a number of adjustments (most are minor but one or two will take a bit of work) as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. As is always the case the system allows 2 – 7 days to finalise such requests – but in some cases a couple of extra days can be granted. Please let me know directly (before the first 7 days) if you need that extra time.
I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template {{done}} after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion. Done
Whilst there is a chance that you are left somewhat flabbergasted at the apparent amount of work still needed (having read all that I have indicated above) – I can also indicate again to you that for the most part, editors have done an excellent job and if you fix all of the above suggestions within seven days and let me know I will review it again and it has a good chance of passing – but please make sure that you get all the adjustments done.
A GA article as most of you will know is a feather in your cap - and this article is certainly worth pushing down that road.
Please let me know on my talk page when you finish or if you have any questions. Cheers -- VS talk 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has not reached GA criteria in the time provided. I do note the adjustments made by various editors towards that goal and I have returned in agreement on the legitimate comments left by editors in return of the above assessment. I invite you to adjust the document to the standards required and re-nominate. I also note (briefly) in the interests of transparency that user:Nilfanion has contacted me with regards his inability to pursue this article for some time, due to personal stress issues (which he has posted on his user page). I respect that position and have returned to him in private however, with respect, I do not think it is wise to leave the GA assessment in abeyance until his return and have not done so. I will be more than happy to continue with the assessment personally when the article reaches WP:GAC and therefore bump it up the list if renomination occurs in a reasonable amount of time.-- VS talk 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why it would be premature; the addition has nothing to do with deaths, but instead that Sidr was a cyclone hitting a similar area with a similar track. (to clarify, the IP that made the original change is me; I sometimes forget to log in) IPchanges the box 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why these two sentences are included? In Italy and Switzerland, many people lost interest in the disaster after the initial shock. News reports indicated that they perceived the disaster was far away and was someone else's responsibility. It seems grossly POV to me. If the source indicates that this was the attitude taken by many og the people, it should definitely be reworded for clarification. bob rulz ( talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check if the NY Times really published that in a headline? It's cite 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.136.16 ( talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the 112-knot 1-minute sustained winds figure after finding that the JTWC has no wind data on it, while a Google search is mostly empty-handed. If this is to be re-added, I'd really like to see a lot of sources stating the same thing.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1970 Bhola cyclone. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1970 Bhola cyclone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
1970 Bhola cyclone was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on November 13, 2005, November 13, 2006, November 13, 2007, November 13, 2008, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2010, November 13, 2011, November 12, 2013, November 12, 2017, November 12, 2020, and November 12, 2023. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The title of this article may be wrong. Can anyone confirm that this disaster is most generally known as the 'Bhola cyclone'. I'm not finding many Google references to it under that name, and the cyclone + tidal wave affected a much larger area. In the meantime, I've moved to page to '1970 Bhola cyclone' to conform to the style of other natural disaster articles and because cyclones in the area of the Bay of Bengal occur nearly every year. -- Solipsist 09:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I cut this text:
because [1] refers to three earthquakes with higher numbers of dead (the source given there is Catalog of significant earthquakes 2000 BC–1979, including Quantative Casualties and Damage, NOAA World Data Center, 1981). If famines and epidemics count as natural disasters — which they do according to the Wikipedia article — then there have been many much more deadly than any earthquake or storm. Gdr 17:49, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
The official figure for death toll is 500,000, according to Banglapedia (see [2]). I updated the figure in the article. I agree that the real number is not known and can be higher, the region being one of the most densely populated in the world. -- Ragib 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I presume the figure of 500,000 made it the deadliest, and not the "other estimates"? Beetle B. 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the 1931 Huang He flood is generally considered to be the worst disaster in recorded history. At least from everything I've read. jcomp489
this is not like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake' comments. -- Solipsist 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I think we should change the 500,000 deaths to 500,000+, since we do not know the exact number. HurricaneGeek { User talk:HurricaneGeek} — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Per the WMO, most reliable sources back up the death toll of 300,000. I quote: However, less regulated sites such as Wikipedia consistently state 500,000 people dead. Unfortunately, these sites claiming a 500,000 death toll list as source weblinks which are dead or inactive or, as one committee member noted, “part of the ‘grey’ literature.” Consequently, given the consistency in the reviewed professional literature (particularly articles dating to times just after the catastrophe), the committee recommended acceptance of the estimated 300,000 value as best available estimate of the Great Bhola Cyclone mortality. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
why is it showing an all depression? Irfanfaiz 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
's winds, but rather due to the tidal bore that swept the coastal areas. And it doesn't come gradually, but rather is like a tsunami. So, it is of course justifiable that many people were asleep at the time. -- Ragib 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I found it in a book that it is 919 mb...
Expand intro and more impact. Storm05 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to be able to do all this myself (at least not right away), but this article needs to be restructured similarly to other tropical cyclone articles (see Cyclone Mala, Hurricane Isabel, Tropical Storm Bilis). It needs separate impact and storm history sections. -- Core desat 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Nilfanion, great rewrite. Just copyedit it to ensure flow, and potentially add damage images. Also, add 2006 USD when it is not included. Hurricanehink ( talk) 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
If you don't at least add the current units in, it makes copyediting a lot harder. — jdorje ( talk) 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time. My comments are as follows:
There has been a good deal of work put into the article. Inline citations are generally very well put together (see a couple of issues below) and in most of the article there is clear prose and good grammar.
However as the assessor I will require a number of adjustments (most are minor but one or two will take a bit of work) as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. As is always the case the system allows 2 – 7 days to finalise such requests – but in some cases a couple of extra days can be granted. Please let me know directly (before the first 7 days) if you need that extra time.
I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template {{done}} after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion. Done
Whilst there is a chance that you are left somewhat flabbergasted at the apparent amount of work still needed (having read all that I have indicated above) – I can also indicate again to you that for the most part, editors have done an excellent job and if you fix all of the above suggestions within seven days and let me know I will review it again and it has a good chance of passing – but please make sure that you get all the adjustments done.
A GA article as most of you will know is a feather in your cap - and this article is certainly worth pushing down that road.
Please let me know on my talk page when you finish or if you have any questions. Cheers -- VS talk 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has not reached GA criteria in the time provided. I do note the adjustments made by various editors towards that goal and I have returned in agreement on the legitimate comments left by editors in return of the above assessment. I invite you to adjust the document to the standards required and re-nominate. I also note (briefly) in the interests of transparency that user:Nilfanion has contacted me with regards his inability to pursue this article for some time, due to personal stress issues (which he has posted on his user page). I respect that position and have returned to him in private however, with respect, I do not think it is wise to leave the GA assessment in abeyance until his return and have not done so. I will be more than happy to continue with the assessment personally when the article reaches WP:GAC and therefore bump it up the list if renomination occurs in a reasonable amount of time.-- VS talk 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see why it would be premature; the addition has nothing to do with deaths, but instead that Sidr was a cyclone hitting a similar area with a similar track. (to clarify, the IP that made the original change is me; I sometimes forget to log in) IPchanges the box 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any good reason why these two sentences are included? In Italy and Switzerland, many people lost interest in the disaster after the initial shock. News reports indicated that they perceived the disaster was far away and was someone else's responsibility. It seems grossly POV to me. If the source indicates that this was the attitude taken by many og the people, it should definitely be reworded for clarification. bob rulz ( talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can someone check if the NY Times really published that in a headline? It's cite 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.136.16 ( talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
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) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the 112-knot 1-minute sustained winds figure after finding that the JTWC has no wind data on it, while a Google search is mostly empty-handed. If this is to be re-added, I'd really like to see a lot of sources stating the same thing.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1970 Bhola cyclone. 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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)