Talk:1941 Cabo San Lucas hurricane

1941 Cabo San Lucas hurricane 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.
Review: July 5, 2013. (Reviewed version).

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).

What to do?

This article seems to be about two hurricanes that hit the same region, unless the second impact paragraph is just misleading. Perhaps move it to 1941 Cabo San Lucas hurricanes? It's unusual, and there isn't much precedent, but it could work. Alternatively, merge back into the season article, and develop that more? The season article already covers much of the content that appears here, and already mentions both storms. Check out how organized a broad decade article can be, if it was like that for the 1940s PHS's. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The former could work. I am opposed to the latter, this is a very important storm. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is more than one storm. It's not an "important storm", it seems to be two important storms. Why are you so against an organized season section? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, "important storms". If merged, it would overflow the decades content. (and no, don't trim it down to prove your point.) Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would have to be trimmed. Check out the 17th century article I posted, where several storms have decent length sections. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1600s page is 53 kb and the tables are a bit long. I don't think it will work for the 1940's, given that a lot more info will likely be available within the coming months. I don't see why this article can't cover both storms? As I said, it would outflow the decade article's content not to mention the importance of the storms. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Would the 40s be longer than the 1600s? If this season were in the BT, the default would be for just having a season article, but there isn't exactly enough info to split each season in the 40s (especially in the years with no storms). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at the moment, but in the future, maybe? While things might change in the future, I agree that there is not enough for each seas in the 40s. I think they should be left as it is and this article could be re-formatted to covered both storms. What is wrong with that? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about how things might change in the future without giving examples. As it stands, this article covers two separate storms. If it was on one, that would be a different story. The article is just poorly structured, and when dealing with multiple tropical cyclones, it generally is best to cover them either singularly or as a season. Have you tried making an article for the season? If there is (or soon will be) the info you claim there is, then there should be enough for a season article (similar to 1939 PHS, I'd imagine). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most books just say "a hurricane hit Cabo San Lucas in 1941", so I have no way of knowing which storm is which. While I have considered making a season article, a season article for 1941 would be hard to manage. So, it's best two just covering two storms in one article, which as stated is the solution to the formatting issue IMO. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But MWL keeps them separate, right? I don't get why a season article wouldn't work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MWR covers both storms in one section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh, the MWR sometimes does that too for Atlantic storms. What is your opposition to a season article? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I said it above, but I will re-say it for you again. I have no idea which storm caused impact in Cabo San Lucas, so I have no idea what section in the season article to put it under (the first or the second). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The MWR says the first one caused the damage and deaths, and the second was the really intense one. The MWR doesn't say anything about the second hurricane causing the significant damage in Cabo San Lucas, so the article could still be formatted on the first hurricane, or the season article could have the damage just under the first one, again, as per the MWR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where would the Cabo San Lucas hurricane info go? CSUN says the second affected California and the USA Today says a hurricane slammed into the peninsula in September of 1941 (both likely got its info from the EPHC tech memo of 1980), which is why I suspect the second storm destroyed Cabo San Lucas, given that the AP artilce in the MWR just mention San Jose del Cabo and La Paz, which are north of Cabo San Lucas. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little OR, if you suspect the second storm destroyed CSL. Again, the info could go to a season article, as there isn't much on the second storm specifically. There is a bit of precedence in WPTC. At one point, Hurricane Klaus and Tropical Storm Marco (1990) both existed in the same article, even though they were separate storms that affected separate areas at different times. It worked out best to simply split them. Now, since they were in 1990 (and affected US), they had much more info than these storms in 1941. I value the importance of the storm, believe me. I just don't think it's formatted well on here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me restore to the time it was about the 1st hurricane, then we'll see. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I think it's much better now, and more focused. I hadn't read the MWL until today, when I realized that it focused on the first storm. Make sure you tweak the content about the second storm. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should not make a season article, should I (to cover the second storm)? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of now there doesn't appear to be a need (due to adequate coverage in the decade article). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for now. I will likely do other pre-1950 EPAC storms in the coming months, so we may still have issues like this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's focused on the individual storm (and not multiple), I think it will be fine, with no need for the season articles to be split. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How far away is this article from GAN? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how much info it's missing ;) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not much. It is much harder than normal to get Spanish sources for this storm, largely because a search term for the year "1941" gives you results for rainfall records since that is when rainfall records began for Mexico. I copyedited the article, so the writing should be okay. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1941 Cabo San Lucas hurricane/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 20:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly review this! Thanks for your work on the article. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Really interesting article. It is well-written, cited accordingly, and very informative. Below are a few of my concerns that need to be addressed. This is the first part of the review. I'll be checking out the sources on the second part for accuracy and be posting if there are any concerns needed to be addressed. Thanks again. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 20:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The 1941 Cabo San Lucas hurricane is considered one of the worst tropical cyclones on record to affect Cabo San Lucas. – Given that Cabo San Lucas is mentioned twice, consider changing to 'affect the region of Baja California Sur' or something similar.
- - But it's not. It is the worst in Cosbo San Lucas. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two villages were completely destroyed. Furthermore, Cabo San Lucas was virtually destroyed – Considering rephrasing so that destroyed is not used twice.
- Changed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the hurricane destroyed the tuna canning industry – The intro implies that the tuna cannding industry was destroyed in La Paz, while the sections below suggest that it actually happened in San José del Cabo. Consider adding the exact location in the intro.
- Added. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The remnants of the storm later brought rains to California and Arizona. – Rains on California were already mentioned in the intro. Maybe you can add Arizona and its measurements together with California.
- - Removed the previous mention. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Meteorological history

A tropical storm was first reported on September 8 – Please add the year so it won't be necessary later on.
- Disagreed, but added it anyway. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and entered the Gulf of California – Please link Gulf of California.
- I do so in the lead. I chose to do one wikilink in the article, given how short it is. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact and aftermath

Throughout the peninsula, 15 people were killed, and many were injured. – It is not a necessity, but do you have the exact figures for those injured? It would be interesting to know.
- No, sorry. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The port town of Cabo San Lucas was washed away and mostly destroyed due to flooding – Please link Cabo San Lucas.
- See above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong winds and heavy rain lashed the southern tip of the Baja California Peninsula for 48 hours – Please link Baja California Peninsula.
- See above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
La Paz, Baja California Sur and nearby villages – Likewise.
- It's not linked above, so okay. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Word War II – Likewise.
- See above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Four other stations record more than 2 in (51 mm) – What do you mean by stations? Should it be changed to recorded, too?
- Clarified and your second concern is Done. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing sources

All information is cited accordingly. My only concern is this source. Is it a reliable one?

Given the wording, I think it it okay. Thanks for the review. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. Article passes. Good job! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 23:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]