This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Anita article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hurricane Anita 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 Anita is part of the 1977 Atlantic 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anything on impact. Jdorje 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Both the best track data and the MWR on Anita indicate that the storm dissipated over central Mexico, but the AMS document of the East Pacific hurricane season the same year say that Anita's remnants got to water and became Tropical Depression 11. I looked everywhere else, but barely anything on Anita's dissipation or the formation of 11 exists.
My question is: Did Anita (or anything associated with Anita) officially reach the Pacific and became T.D.11? The link to the AMS document saying T.D.11 was Anita is: http://ams.allenpress.com/pdfserv/10.1175%2F1520-0493(1978)106%3C0546:ENPTCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Jake52 My talk 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created a track map using the data in that AMS document and adding it to the Anita best track. The results shown here, what do you think?-- Nilfanion ( talk) 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! Jake52 My talk 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Was it a cat.4 or 5?
The Monthly Weather Review of 1977 claims Anita was a strong Cat. 4 upon landfall, whereas this e-journal from 2003 says it hit land at peak intensity i.e. Cat. 5.
I'm inclined to go with the latter, as it is more recent. Nevertheless, details are rather vague. Pobbie Rarr 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
HURDAT does NOT confirm Cat 5 at landfall. At 0600Z on Sept. 2 the storm was 50 miles before landfall with 150 knot winds, and at 1200Z it was 20 miles after landfall with 120 knot winds. That's an awfully stiff drop to simply be explained by a landfall. It may have been experiencing a Katrina-esque ingestion of dry air on its final approach. This system desperately needs a reanalysis, or chatter that a storm can't make landfall at Cat 5 strength west of the Mississippi River will continue.. FSUrv95 18:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, a very good article. Per GA critetia, I see it has no writing problems, it is verifiable, adresses the major points of it's subject, and it has images. Therefore, I will pass the article. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hurricane Anita article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Hurricane Anita 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 Anita is part of the 1977 Atlantic 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. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Anything on impact. Jdorje 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Both the best track data and the MWR on Anita indicate that the storm dissipated over central Mexico, but the AMS document of the East Pacific hurricane season the same year say that Anita's remnants got to water and became Tropical Depression 11. I looked everywhere else, but barely anything on Anita's dissipation or the formation of 11 exists.
My question is: Did Anita (or anything associated with Anita) officially reach the Pacific and became T.D.11? The link to the AMS document saying T.D.11 was Anita is: http://ams.allenpress.com/pdfserv/10.1175%2F1520-0493(1978)106%3C0546:ENPTCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Jake52 My talk 03:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created a track map using the data in that AMS document and adding it to the Anita best track. The results shown here, what do you think?-- Nilfanion ( talk) 19:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! Jake52 My talk 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Was it a cat.4 or 5?
The Monthly Weather Review of 1977 claims Anita was a strong Cat. 4 upon landfall, whereas this e-journal from 2003 says it hit land at peak intensity i.e. Cat. 5.
I'm inclined to go with the latter, as it is more recent. Nevertheless, details are rather vague. Pobbie Rarr 12:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
HURDAT does NOT confirm Cat 5 at landfall. At 0600Z on Sept. 2 the storm was 50 miles before landfall with 150 knot winds, and at 1200Z it was 20 miles after landfall with 120 knot winds. That's an awfully stiff drop to simply be explained by a landfall. It may have been experiencing a Katrina-esque ingestion of dry air on its final approach. This system desperately needs a reanalysis, or chatter that a storm can't make landfall at Cat 5 strength west of the Mississippi River will continue.. FSUrv95 18:15, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Nice work, a very good article. Per GA critetia, I see it has no writing problems, it is verifiable, adresses the major points of it's subject, and it has images. Therefore, I will pass the article. -- JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)