Talk:Hurricane Kathleen

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. California Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Hurricane Kathleen was not a hurricane when its remnants affected California. It's grossly misleading to categorize it as a "California hurricane". The most remarkable thing about California weather is that no hurricane has ever made landfall here, because the offshore waters are far too cool. Tmangray 19:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should still be in the California category, seeing as it affected California. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A hurricane did impact California in 1858. Thegreatdr 20:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better intro, a summary of the impact (at the top of the section). Jdorje 02:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you prefer the {{ref}}/{{note}} reference format? Seems to me the <ref>/<reference> format is much easier. Jdorje 02:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in

Reference named "Williams":

• From List of Pacific hurricanes: Jack Williams (2005-05-17). "Background: California's Tropical Storms". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-11-24.
• From List of California hurricanes: Jack Williams (2005-05-17). "California's Tropical Cyclones". USA Today. Retrieved 2007-12-26.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created and DYK'd this article, I am ineligible to conduct a GA review. However, I can leave comments:

• Some old versions of the
  List of historic tropical cyclone names (eg this one) mention that "Kate replaced Kathleen in 1976". The only Kathleen this could possibly be referring to is this one. Perhaps it should be investigated as to whether the EPHC actually did retire this name and then somehow de jure "unretired", or if this was just an error on our/the sources used for that version's part(s). (I wouldn't put it past them to retire this name, as this system may not unreasonably be considered the worst PH to affect the Continental US since the EPHC era began. From an outside perspective, Tico, Lidia, Norma, Liza, Tara, Paul, and one with the same name as yours truly had as good, if not better, case for retirement, but that's an OT debate in itself). The 1977 op plan (which as of this writing isn't available would probably provide the definitive answer, unless someone else knows (I'm thinking of you
  ).
  • I have noticed thst before, but I have no evidence to back that up. Quiet interesting though. If I don't forget, Ill ask DR to comment here.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I have no idea. I do know that coordination was made to avoid placing the same names on both the northeast Pacific and north Atlantic lists during the same season. As Kate was introduced in 1979 on the Atlantic side, before the six year rotating multi-gender naming list was instituted in the northeast Pacific (which was 1982), this would have put a crimp on Kate's use for Kathleen's replacement. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering that this hurricane was from the 1970's it's remarkable that it has (rather poor-quality) damage photos. However, this system is probably recent enough to have a satellite picture, which should be in the infobox.
  • I don't upload images, so someone else will have to fix this.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• There isn't very much info on Mexico impact.
  • Don't have access to anything other info out there, not surprising though.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The 1977 op plan is now up. Kathleen is listed in the EPac name list for 1980, so I guess this proves it wasn't retired. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

Talk:Hurricane Kathleen (1976)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll start this review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comments

lede

• Should it be: "a tropical depression formed, named Kathleen"? - point at which storm was named.
  • When it became a tropical storm, it was named Kathleen, but the naming itself is not important enough for the lead. It flows better without mentioning this.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• "recurve" - could this be briefly explained without the reader having to read and understand the linked article?
  • Yea, but I might have made it worse.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "These troughs" - starts two sentences in a row
  • Fixed.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• "weakened only slowly" - clumpsy wording
  • Removed "only".
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "eye" - a hurricane doesn't have to develop an eye?
  • No.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "Kathleen weakened only slowly over California. Tropical Storm Kathleen weakened " - repeated wording
• How so?
  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Kathleen made its second landfall" - I'm not clear where the first one was
  • Clarified.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "Finally, the center became difficult to locate" - so a hurricane can have a center, but not an eye?
  • Yea.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• common words like "cotton", "lettuce" and "hay" shouldn't be linked.
• why is "one and 160 year event." linked to 100-year flood?
  • The article gives the basic principle of how the 1 in 100 year flood thing works.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• "Total damage was $160 million, making Kathleen one of the costliest tropical storms in state history" - is this still true in 2012?
• yea. Have no source to back up, but according to my records, Kathleen is 2nd.
  ^{Pacific Hurricane}
• "flash flood watches were issued throughout Southern California, including the desert and mountains.[17] Flash flood warnings were also issued for parts of the state," - needs rewording as "parts of the state" is vague after previously specifying "Southern California".
• Reworded slightly. Any better?
  ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• why are some states linked and not others?
  • Good call.
    ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• I made some copy edits so please revert any errors.[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   B. Complies with

   list incorporation

   :

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides

   reliable sources

   where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

4. Does it follow the
   neutral point of view
   policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have

   fair use rationales

   :

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Passed! Fine job. Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"After crossing the Piont Enegia Peninsula (the cyclones first landfall) later on the morning of September 10". What is the source for this? Monthly Weather Review, page 12 does not show it. Regards,

You're clicking on the DOI, not the actual URL. The actual URL is here and its says it on page 12.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Where exactly on the page. I checked the pdf before. Searching the pdf does not find a match either. Regards,

talk) 14:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Got it, a few lines up from bottom left. Piont Enegia Peninsula => Point Eugenia peninsula, three words are typos no wonder the pdf search didn't find it. Regards,

talk) 14:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply

]