![]() | 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Should this article be renamed to the 1939 Long Beach Hurricane? Storm05 13:39, 2 June 2006 (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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
Should Cordonazo wind be merged into this article? -- œ ™ 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the article is possibly slightly below the level of a good article. While it does address the main points of the cyclone in a concise way, I don't believe there are really enough images or explanations of terms to justify a good article rating. Also, the "Impact" section doesn't seem to be organized well enough to merit this status. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose and close No clear issues and images are optional, according to WP:GACR. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose + Close The only thing I can see is the prose needs a tad bit of improvement. With the image thing, you simply need to look at the time period. There were minimal images at that time and most of them have likely been lost. As for the explanation of terms, I have no idea what you are talking about. This article isn't overly technical in its explanation of the system. Figfires Send me a message! 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Yellow Evan, Nova Crystallis, and Figfires: Thank you for your feedback. Does anybody know how to close the discussion? Also, thanks for educating me about good article reassessment. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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 so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Should this article be renamed to the 1939 Long Beach Hurricane? Storm05 13:39, 2 June 2006 (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)
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:
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)
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:
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)
Should Cordonazo wind be merged into this article? -- œ ™ 05:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
It looks like the article is possibly slightly below the level of a good article. While it does address the main points of the cyclone in a concise way, I don't believe there are really enough images or explanations of terms to justify a good article rating. Also, the "Impact" section doesn't seem to be organized well enough to merit this status. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 04:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose and close No clear issues and images are optional, according to WP:GACR. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 18:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Oppose + Close The only thing I can see is the prose needs a tad bit of improvement. With the image thing, you simply need to look at the time period. There were minimal images at that time and most of them have likely been lost. As for the explanation of terms, I have no idea what you are talking about. This article isn't overly technical in its explanation of the system. Figfires Send me a message! 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@ Yellow Evan, Nova Crystallis, and Figfires: Thank you for your feedback. Does anybody know how to close the discussion? Also, thanks for educating me about good article reassessment. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 02:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)