Talk:1975 Pacific hurricane season

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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.
	Tropical cyclones portal 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).

1975 Pacific hurricane season 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
Date	Process	Result
October 15, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
December 22, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
April 2, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

1975 Pacific hurricane season is the main article of the series "1975 Pacific hurricane season", a current good topic removal candidate because it may no longer meet the standards of style, usefulness, and completeness to be a good topic. Please add a comment to support or contest its removal, or improve the topic by being bold.

Unnamed Hurricane

How was this storm missed by meteorologists? They had satellites in 1975, so why wasn't it given a name even though it had an "evident eye" according to the article? This should be answered in the article. --tomf688^{talk} 20:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the author got the info, although UNISYS has the storm on record and I don't doubt its existance. I'd love to see a sat photo of it, but I highly doubt one exists. Meteorologists at the time probably thought this system was just a strong polar low or severe arctic storm, as is commonplace in the Alaskan region. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the hurricane had no official name, I renamed it in the article simply as Unnamed Hurricane, just like we would in any other basin. Numbers are not officially assigned except for tropical depressions in most basins, and this guards against any changes in any future tropical cyclone reanalysis. There were not 12 tropical cyclones in the central Pacific that year to begin with...I believe the 12 is in reference to where it formed sequentially when considering all tropical storms/hurricanes east of the dateline and north of the equator which was done out of simplicity in the code for the eastern Pacific HURDAT. A satellite picture does exist. If you'd like, I'll get it scanned in. Thegreatdr 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Hurricanehink (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hitch. The image I found was in the original Monthly Weather Review article, which is in PDF as it is. Despite the fact this image is of government origin, the publication hasn't been directly published by the government/predecessor to the NWS in decades. It is published by the AMS. D'oh! Thegreatdr 02:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Oh well... Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all hope is lost. I'm sure the NOAA image can be requested from NCDC. Unfortunately, the online polar orbiting archive begins in 1978. I'll see what I can get from NCDC, unless someone beats me to it. Thegreatdr 03:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1978? Very interesting. There's an existing archive that goes back to mid-way through 1983, and I thought that was as far back as it went. Yea, go for the request, and good luck. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

Great work overall. I'm tempted to give it B-Class, but a copyedit would really help it along. Watch out for redundant words that the sentence would convey the same meaning without. Also, some of the wording gets a tad unencyclopedic, but it's not a huge deal. Good luck getting it to GA/FA. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1975 Pacific hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 18:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The storms section strikes mhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1975_Pacific_hurricane_season/GA1&action=edite as a bit odd. Why not put that info in the section in the lede?
It's suppose to be the season summary section :P Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Hurricane Agatha, the phrasing is a bit awkward. "Although Agatha passed close to mainland Mexico while weakening,[9] it caused no known impact in that country.[7]" Why not write it as "Although Agatha passed close to Mexico as it weakened, no impact is known to have been caused."
Put in something similar. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...taking its multi-million dollar cargo of 71 containers of canned tuna with it."—"Containers with canned tuna" sounds weird, as you aren't very clear. Do you mean those containers were the cans, or the containers have cans of tuna in them? If the second one, what type of container was it?
I honestly don't know. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Tropical Storm Bridget, you wrote "...accelerating as it turned to the northwest, then west, and then southwesterly." The phrasing, again, is weird.
Reworded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "...caused no known impact" sounds strange. Think of other ways to phrase this.
Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Hurricane Carlotta, you are writing a really short sentence here: "It became a hurricane on July 3." Why not add in the next sentence? "It became a hurricane on July 3, and ultimately peaked as a Category 3 hurricane."
Combined. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hurricane Carlotta was first major hurricane, Category 3 or higher, of the season." You already linked the SSHS page, which should explain what a major hurricane is, so I don't think you need to explain what intensity a major hurricane is. But I'm not sure, really, about what you should do with this sentence.
The SSHS page does not explain what a major hurricane is. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Hurricane Denise, you say "headed west to northwestward." I don't get what that means. Do you mean it first headed west, then traveled northwestward, or do you mean to say west-northwestward?
Reworded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It continued to strengthen." Can you perhaps chain this sentence with another? It's pretty short.
Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Tropical Storm Eleanor, you need a comma after "July 10".
Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...upgraded into Tropical Storm Eleanor" You need a period there.
Done. 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

"Moved northwestward, and then northward, the system made landfall near Manzanillo on July 12." I'd suggest rewording to "The tropical storm moved northwestward, and later curved northward. The system made landfall near Manzanillo on July 12."
Incorporated your suggestion. 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For Tropical Storm Hilary, you say "Based on this, this system was classified as Tropical Depression Nine on August 13." Why not use "based on these circumstances..."
I don't see any need to make the change. 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For Hurricane Ilsa, you say "from a weather system"—what kind of weather system? A broad area of low-pressure?
A tropical wave. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you squeeze the strengthening of Ilsa into one sentence?
Of course not. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

"...caused no known casualties or damage." Here we go again :/
Removed "known". Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Hurricane Jewel, you say that Jewel was a hurricane for only six hours, the minimum possible time. That's not true, but you're speaking advisory-wise; try saying that it was only a hurricane for six hours.
How is it not true? HURDAT times are every 6 hours. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Hurricane Katrina...grammar, grammar, grammar. "tropical Storm" should be "tropical storm" and "September 2, No damage" should be "September 2, no damage"
Fixed. 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For the unnamed Pacific Northwest hurricane, link to cold-core low.
Wikilinked per request. 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

For Hurricane Lily, the section reads "000 UTC"—I think you mean 0000 UTC :)
Yeah. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of the section is awkward; maybe you could phrase it like "Reports of wind and rain near Acapulco suggested a tropical depression..."
The reports did not come from near Acapulco, they came from Acapulco. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Tropical Storm Nanette, the phrasing is strange again, maybe you could try "On September 28, a system developed into a tropical depression, simultaneously with Tropical Storm Monica."
Added suggestion. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Hurricane Olivia, the section says "...thunderstorms south of Mexico and then strengthened into a tropical storm"—try "...thunderstorms south of Mexico, later strengthening into a tropical storm."
That sounds weird. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Tropical Storm Priscilla, remove the "a". Maybe you could try "A nearly stationary cloudy area developed circulation..."
That does not make sense. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the tropical cyclone naming section, the article reads "...from the west Pacific's typhoon list"—that makes me thing you're talking about a list of typhoons. Maybe try "...from the naming list of Pacific typhoons."
Reworded. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The first thing that strikes me here is reference 18; there's a citation error.
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs #3, #7, and #21 are duplicates, but they're all dead links.
Removed and repaired. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation number 5 is a dead link.
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Staff Writer," "Writer" shouldn't be capitalized.
Fixed. 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Italicize news agencies (e.g. USA Today).
Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #6 is a dead link.
Fixed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Ref #13 has a tiny formatting mistake in the link, it seems.
Looks fine to me. 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Ref #8 gives an "internal server error".
Not according to the tool above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Consistency with dates is needed.
Not a requirement for GA. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Immediately, I see a problem in the Hurricane Agatha section. There's practically no pre-tropical cyclonegenisis. Though elsewhere, the article looks fine.
Added. 18:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
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:

Fair enough. Passing! :) HurricaneFan 25 20:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane?

CONSENSUS EXISTS

There is a consensus for a merge to occur. The reason for keeping wasn't strong enough to outweigh the other arguments in support of a merge. Noah, AA^Talk 12:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to get ahead of the GAR sweep, I thought I'd bring up one of the oldest articles I ever wrote on Wikipedia. Clearly the storm is unusual and notable, but it relies on HURDAT records, and the season article isn't especially long, so it could handle a merger. Further, since the unnamed hurricane had its origins from Ilsa, I think it would be logical for it to be in the season article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The record that the hurricane is notable for isn't really that impressive and outside of that, it's completely unnotable. ''Flux55'' (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – No significant land impact occurred in association with the system, and no fatalities were reported. Also, there is no direct mention of its distinctiveness by secondary sources. This storm does not merit a stand-article, and the season article would benefit from the merger. Drdpw (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Notable 2003 LN 6 19:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate 2003 LN6 (talk · contribs)? I don't think anyone is denying that it's notable enough to appear on Wikipedia. That's why it has a section in the season article. But if there enough unique content that can't fit in the season section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farthest north hurricane in EPAC, so notable like the 2006 Central Pacific cyclone 2003 LN 6 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I could find some coverage, I couldn’t find any real impacts, and I think this storm could fit in the main article. 108.58.37.250 (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.