Talk:Hurricane Linda (2015)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Linda (2015) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Hurricane Linda (2015) 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.

Hurricane Linda (2015) is part of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 8, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
June 8, 2019	Good topic candidate	Not promoted
March 16, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific / Non-tropical / Floods Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Non-tropical storms task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linda/Utah mess

Well mother nature has created a big mess on us. Right now we have two articles from two fairly related events. Linda and the Utah floods. Think that is a bit too much, especially given that aside from setting a bunch of epic rainfall records, Linda didn't do too much. Given that it appeared that (correct me if I'm wrong) Linda played a crucial role in the Utah events by help pluming deep tropical moisture into the region, I would favor merging the Utah flood article, but I'd like to see more proof that was indeed the case. Regardless, I think two articles is too much for two somewhat minor events. What do you guys think? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Linda was essentially dead at the time and only provided a little extra moisture. The primary factor was an upper-level trough that moved into the region. Linda's direct influence is limited to Mexico and California. I was preemptive with making Linda's article since I originally assumed it had a greater role in the Utah floods. The Utah flood is without a doubt its own event and warrants a separate article accordingly. Linda did have some notable effects in California that have yet to be added to the article so a merger into the season article may not be necessary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does this situation differ from Hurricane Norbert (2014) and Tropical Storm Octave (1983) then? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert was the primary factor in the associated floods in 2014 as it was simply southerly from stemming from its circulation. As for Octave, I highly question the storm being so prominently attributed given that multiple factors combined to create the 1983 floods. It was a crucial part, yes, but still just a part of the overall puzzle. In my opinion, Octave should be moved to 1983 Arizona floods (but the impact still be attributed to the cyclone in the season article). A quick glance at some of the reports cited in Octave's article also leads me to believe the article far overstates Octave's role.... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with CB here. Every southwest flood event is slightly different, but for me, it comes down to the Utah flooding being the most notable aspect. In the future, when people will look for this encyclopediac event, they'll want the Utah floods. Some of the California flood stuff could probably be included here, as it's related. As for everything else, I think the article can be merged. I won't comment on the other storms listed though, that's more of a case-by-case thing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Linda (2015)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 16:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I'll review something else, given how many GAN's I have.

In the opening sentence, I'm not sure "brought heavy rains" is appropriate. Normally it is a fine use, but the rain was tangential, so I'm not sure "brought" is the right term. "resulted in heavy rains" would be fine. It's more semantics, but it bugged me for some reason.
"mudslides resulted in the closure of multiple highways and damaged over a dozen homes" - grammatically, this could use more agreement. The "resulted in" should refer to the rest of the sentence, so "resulted in the closure of multiple highways and damage to over a dozen homes."
"Several small communities were temporarily isolated as flood waters covered bridges." - the "as" is ambiguous. Does it mean "after", "because of", "while", "due to", etc.?
Link pesos in the lead?
"Monsoonal moisture pulled north from Linda brought thunderstorms" - see garden path sentence. "pulled" is ambiguous whether it's an active verb or a passive participle, so it could be clearer.
"On that day Los Angeles received 2.39 in (61 mm) of rain making it the second-wettest September since records began in 1877." - was this the only rainfall LA received that month, on that day? If not, then say "contributing to the second-wettest..." Also, I'd add a comma or two.
You say "a seasonally strong upper-level trough" in consecutive paragraphs. How come you like that wording so much :P
- Whoops...that was a lazy copy/paste job on my part when merging the Utah flood article into this. Reworded the second usage to jive better with the overall article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"and some homes were damaged due to flooding." - where is that in the article? Maybe I'm missing it.
- Blame 12george1 :P Removed the last sentence altogether since there wasn't much substance. Kept Hildale in the lede by indicating where the 21 fatalities took place. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a great read. Should pass GA very easily. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be handled now. Thanks for the review, Hink! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope Canyon

Is not a national park as stated in the 2nd to last paragraph. It's a Navajo tribal park. Not sure what the deadliest weather related incident in a National Park is. Pretzelpaws (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sentence in question. I'm not sure what the replacement would be but the article works just the same without this factoid. Thanks for the heads up! ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Linda (2015). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222173909/http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/26868657/article-Emergency-Watershed-Protection--EWP--funds-announced-in-response-to-Hildale--Utah-flooding to http://www.kcsg.com/view/full_story/26868657/article-Emergency-Watershed-Protection--EWP--funds-announced-in-response-to-Hildale--Utah-flooding

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: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]