Jump to content

Talk:1939 California tropical storm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1939 California tropical storm 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 16, 2018Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Merged

[edit]

I wouldn't say it should be merged with the 1939 Pacific Hurricane Season article, rather, the 1925-1949 Pacific Hurricane Seasons article. Still, not notable enough on its own. Hurricanehink 00:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Screw that comment, I think it is notable enough now. Hurricanehink 00:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity?

[edit]

The article says it was a hurricane, but the infobox says it was a tropical storm. Which was it? --Coredesat 22:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane. I'll change it. Hurricanehink 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I've gone ahead and put this in the Category 1 Hurricanes category. --Coredesat 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

Should this article be renamed to the 1939 Long Beach Hurricane? Storm05 13:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. It made landfall as a tropical storm, so calling the Long Beach Hurricane would be a little confusing. I really don't know. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling both of those names might be inappropriate "1939 Long Beach Storm" could work. I think with this storm, as with other unnamed storms, we should go with however it was called at the time by the public.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that this storm received a nickname in Spanish that translates to "The Lash", which is sometimes used to refer to SW US tropical storms in general...? - 206.149.196.97 14:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I found it being called "El Cordonazo" from the California National Weather Service. Perhaps it should be renamed to 1939 El Cordonazo hurricane? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be called the 1939 Southern California Tropical Storm. After all, it impacted more than just Long Beach. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about calling it the 1939 El Cordonazo hurricane? It was a hurricane at peak strength, but it was a tropical storm at its infamous landfall. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnamed tropical cyclones generally have the formulaic titles of "Place Cyclone-type of Year" or "Year Place Cyclone-type". Only a few unnamed systems have other names, such as the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. Calling it the 1939 El Cordonazo hurricane makes it seem like the system hit a place called El Cordonazo. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, as that does sound like a legitimate location in Latin America. I just think it might be confusing that the storm was actually a hurricane, but the title might suggest otherwise. Alright, looking at the title, it implies that a tropical storm struck Long Beach in 1939. Given that is somewhat incorrect (since the storm hit San Pedro), your suggestion works. In fact, the "southern" isn't necessarily needed (most other US state articles are just Year State type), it could just be 1939 California tropical storm. Note: the tropical storm should not be capitalized. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good article nomination on hold

[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 27, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Morre refs are needed in the following places: The intro, sentences 1 and 3 of the Storm History section, Unusual track, and Impact
3. Broad in coverage?: If there is any information avilable, it could use an Preparations section.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: There might be some photos in the NOAA photo library


Good article overall.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How are the areas outside of the lead not referenced enough? If there is a reference, it references everything before it to the beginning of the paragraph or another reference. Despite that, I added refs to the two sentences you referred to. Also, I searched the NOAA Photolib, and no results from "1939" or "Long Beach" or "Los Angeles" had anything to do with this system. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still suggest that you reuse any references to ref sentences outside of the lead. I simply suggested searching the NOAA photo lib for images, I was not sure if there were any there. Once again, this is a good article, you just need to reuse a few references. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added notes/refs to the lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Successful good article nomination

[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of April 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Good article; Sorry abot the long wait time, I forgot to put the page on my watchlist. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

Should Cordonazo wind be merged into this article? -- Ϫ 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[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) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[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) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community reassessment

[edit]

1939 California tropical storm

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Closed Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:55, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the article is possibly slightly below the level of a good article. While it does address the main points of the cyclone in a concise way, I don't believe there are really enough images or explanations of terms to justify a good article rating. Also, the "Impact" section doesn't seem to be organized well enough to merit this status. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has problems in the sense that I don't think it's detailed enough but what you have described isn't exactly one of them. There aren't going to be many images for a storm that happened 80 years ago. And can you be more specific on "explanations of terms". If anything, jargon is more explained here than in most hurricane GA articles. The order of presentation in the impact is not how I'd do it if I was writing the article but regardless that's an easy fix. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:39, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close No clear issues and images are optional, according to WP:GACR. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose + Close The only thing I can see is the prose needs a tad bit of improvement. With the image thing, you simply need to look at the time period. There were minimal images at that time and most of them have likely been lost. As for the explanation of terms, I have no idea what you are talking about. This article isn't overly technical in its explanation of the system. FigfiresSend me a message! 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan, Nova Crystallis, and Figfires: Thank you for your feedback. Does anybody know how to close the discussion? Also, thanks for educating me about good article reassessment. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hdjensofjfnen: Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment has instructions on closing it. FigfiresSend me a message! 02:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Figfires: Thanks. Closed successfully. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 03:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1939_California_tropical_storm&oldid=1211212387"