Talk:1939 California tropical storm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	1939 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
April 6, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents 1 Merged 2 Intensity? 3 Rename 4 Good article nomination on hold 5 Successful good article nomination

[edit] Merged

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)

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

[edit] Intensity?

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)

Hurricane. I'll change it. Hurricanehink 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I've gone ahead and put this in the Category 1 Hurricanes category. --Coredesat 10:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

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)

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)

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)

I added notes/refs to the lead. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

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)