Talk:Tropical Storm Norma (1970)

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal 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.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific 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).

Todo

More inline sources and info. Not a bad start, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bit of info on Utah rainfall. I will work on the inline sources later while looking for more info (it's an old storm and, despite the infamy of the Labor Day Storm, a vague one). Thanks for the compliment on the article!Jake52 My talk 01:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added more footnotes for cataloging. What else should be done on this article? Jake52 My talk 04:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review?

I want to improve this article, but right now I need more opinions on what should be done and what is missing. Thanks! Jake52 My talk 06:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want a peer review, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment is better than an official peer review would be. After all, people with tropical cyclone knowledge would know more of how to improve a tropical cyclone article. After re-reading it, it's close to B class, but there's still some to be done, provided there's info. The lede should be expanded, ideally to two paragraphs. The storm history should be more about the storm, and not so much relying on recon and ship reports. Recon and ship report mentions are fine to mention once in a while, but not for large portions of the storm history. In addition, using information from the actual fixes is a bit confusing. Given the lack of info on storm history (as it seems), I'd recommend merging the storm history a bit into two paragraphs; one with the development to the peak of the storm, and one post-peak to dissipation. The records section should be merged into the impact, and possibly reiterated in the intro. The impact should be expanded, as well. I know there might not be much info from this time period, but try Newspaper reports and Google. The storm history should also be organized to have meteorological statistics first (rainfall totals, mainly), with damage and deaths next (ideally into a separate paragraph if there's enough info). Try and find some actual damage. Right now, it's mainly statistics. Were there any homes destroyed, for example? Mainly more info is needed. Good luck finding some. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link with a small bit of info. It doesn't state the storm directly, but it describes the flooding in the four corners area. Though there isn't much there, it provides a reference which could have more. It also gives an overall damage total; $10 million. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

The article is mostly about the impact in the southwest United States, which wasn't directly from Norma. Given we have publications that call it the "Labor Day Storm of 1970", there is precedent to using an alternative title. Although I wouldn't prefer that one exactly, I think the article should be moved and focused to something like 1970 Southwest United States floods. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tropical Storm Norma (1970). 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/20070929150653/http://ci.show-low.az.us/departments/public_works/MultiHazardMitigationPlan/Appendix%20F/HistoricalHazards_Navajo.pdf to http://ci.show-low.az.us/departments/public_works/MultiHazardMitigationPlan/Appendix%20F/HistoricalHazards_Navajo.pdf

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) 08:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]