Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

Todo

In section second and third landfalls it says "forward speed was 15 mph (10 km/h)", however 15 mph and 10 km/h are different speeds. I don't know which number is correct though. Somebody who does should fix this.

This was a copy-and-paste of a section in the main Katrina article, so it needs an intro (and the main article may still need to be pruned). --AySz88^-^ 04:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I added and intro and cleaned the article up some. I'll check the main article now and prune. --AySz88^-^ 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Done, but wasn't able to do much in the main article :/. --AySz88^-^ 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia graphic for this page, as well as the main Hurricane Katrina page, has a red-bordered caption, "Category 5 storm." While this is technically accurate, that Katrina was a Cat-5 storm during its lifespan, it's somewhat misleading.. Someone clicking on the page may see "Category 5 Storm" and assume that it was at that intensity when it landed on the Gulf Coast.

Both articles, further in, correctly point out that Katrina made landfall as a strong Cat-3 storm.

Here is why it is important that the Wikipedia articles in question not mislead readers into thinking Katrina was a Cat-5 storm at landfall:

- The damage to New Orleans was essentially man-made; that is, the Army Corps of Engineers accepted responsibility for the failures of the levees surrounding New Orleans. These levees failed after a "side-swipe" from a Cat-3 storm, not an impact from a Cat-5 storm.

- More than 1,800 people died in the aftermath of Katrina. It is important that the public knows that a maximum-strength storm is not required to do maximum impact upon a major coastal city.

(By the way, I'm CC'ing this to the head of the National Hurricane Center, NOAA, our local weather office in New Orleans.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.74.220 (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete?

Most of the information is already included in the Hurricane Katrina article, and the only thing that would really need merging is the final paragraph of this article, as everything else is either unnecessary detail or worded more concisely in the main article. So, should it be merged or deleted? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular objection. Originally I took the old storm history from the Katrina article and moved it here, then condensed it greatly in the main article. This version is still about twice as long, and could surely be made longer. The question is whether there's any reason to do such a thing. — jdorje (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of the records part, I don't see why it should be expanded more than this. Any reader that requires the exact hour at which Katrina became a Category 2 hurricane would probably be looking at the TCR anyway. There's way too many subpages of Katrina, some of which have excessive information, so I'll send it to AFD. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I just simplified the text in the main Hurricane Katrina article regarding storm history, and moved a lot of content to this article (with a 'main' link in the original article). Dr. Cash 21:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, wasn't the content at the main Katrina article already in this article (I think)? I'm not sure exactly what you did, since the diff is marking basically everything as changed.... --AySz88^-^ 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Revert note

I reverted this edit because I felt that it was redundant with both other sections on this page and with the Storm History at Hurricane Katrina, and because it had a lot of impact information which isn't really within the scope of this article. I advised Wikid77 on his user talk page to avoid impacts and if he still feels any things aren't redundant to add them to their respective articles/sections. —AySz88\^-^ 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

GA comments

I enjoy reading this article, as the story of meteorogical history of Hurricane Katrina flows smoothly from the formation to the demise with a clear well-written prose that a non-specialist reader, like me, can grab the whole article without any problem. This article is also supported by reliable sources and it can be verified easily with inline citations. The subject of this article is the meteorogical history of Katrina and it is indeed about it from the lead section till the end, making this article broad enough in terms of its topic without diverging into the Katrina disaster at all. The lead section is also very nice to summarize this meteorogical history. I see no NPOV problem, as it is only factual text, and thus this article does not suffer any edit wars (it is stable).

However, I see 2 problems in the images used, which can prevent me to grant GA status of this article:

1. Image Image:Katrina_2005_track.png has wrong license tag, as it comes from NASA, not own work. It can be easily changed its tag.
2. Image Image:Katrina_vs_sea_surface_height.JPG is copyrighted, thus it is not suitalble for Wikipedia.

I put this article as ON HOLD in the WP:GAC. Please leave me a message, as soon as the above problems are fixed. — Indon (reply) — 21:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Katrina map is own work (mine). Its only the BG map that is NASA...--Nilfanion (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The first second image should be usable, as "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose." I think it (and similar images) was released by Jim Scott at the University of Colorado, like Image:Wilma oct24 11am.jpg (which actually mentions the e-mail). —AySz88\^-^ 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The first image is solved, but I have to check whether copyrighted image tag for free use for the second one is really valid. I'll be right back for that. — Indon (reply) — 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:TAG, one of the guidelines says:

* When marking an image as one of the more vague categories (such as CopyrightedFreeUse), try to specify somewhere what the actual license or other permission states.

It is a vague category, but it is accepted as one official Wikipedia image tag. Thus I have to give GA status as images are properly tagged, per WP:WIAGA. — Indon (reply) — 23:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Depression Twelve

Could someone clarify this in the lead? Would be more readable for those who are unfamiliar. --Brand спойт 13:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It was named Tropical Depression Twelve. It seems clear enough. ShadowHalo 01:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

NWS Warning

The National Weather Service issued a warning in the strongest terms at 4:13 pm CDT on August 28, see [1]. I assume from the URL that this came from the Southern Region Headquarters. Should this be addressed in the article? John M Baker 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure... it already has its own article, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a sentence with a cross-reference to the article. John M Baker 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured article concerns

Looking at this as part of the ongoing FA sweeps. This one has some uncited text, including an entire paragraph in the second and third landfalls section. Additionally, all but a single sentence of this article is source to National Hurricane Center reports. This extreme reliance on the NHC seems problematic with WP:FACR #1c, given the vast amounts of scholarly literature about Katrina. Hog Farm _Talk 15:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 22:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article over the next week or so. You can follow the progress in the template below.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review

Feel free to correct issues as I mark them or explain why you wrote the way you did.

Lead section

• The sentence "Katrina's origins can be traced to the mid-level remnants of Tropical Depression Ten, a tropical wave, and an upper tropospheric trough." reads almost like the tropical wave and the trough are in apposition to Tropical Depression Ten. I am aware that the Oxford comma clarifies that this is not the case, but for readers reading through initially, it can give the wrong first impression. Indeed, my first impression was that the wave and trough were in apposition until I thought "that can't be correct" and re-read the sentence. Your sentence is correct, but it might give a wrong first impression.
  • I'm unsure of how to better word this to alleviate the potential confusion without it being overly detailed for a lead section. If it's grammatically acceptable I think leaving it is the best course as the article's body has the in-depth explanation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'll try to think of something. If I can't, I'll just pass the article. GA doesn't require perfection—just good quality.

  I couldn't think of anything. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

• The following clause "The former system emerged as a wave..." can be taken two separate ways, either incorrectly ("[Katrina] emerged as a wave...") or correctly ("[Depression Ten] emerged as a wave..."). Consider revising this sentence.
  • I've adjusted this to The tropical depression emerged as a wave off West Africa on August 8, the second wave followed on August 11, while the trough came into play between August 17 and 23. to more clearly specify the systems. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Much better!

• In the third paragraph, the first sentence begins with: "Katrina made two landfalls in southeastern Louisiana on August 29 as a Category 3 hurricane". Do you think that there should be some blurb about how the two landfalls is due to crossing the Breton Sound or would that be too much information in the lead section? I had to go to the section on landfalls to figure out what you meant. Alternatively, perhaps mentioning that there were two landfalls is unnecessary information in the lead. What are your thoughts here?
  • I think simplifying it to Katrina struck southeastern Louisiana on August 29 as a Category 3 hurricane... gets the same point across and bypasses the need for the clearer explanation. I've changed it to that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  That also works. Simplicity is a virtue in the lead.

• In the third paragraph: "It briefly deepened and stalled over Quebec, Canada, in early September before resuming its forward motion." I don't think "forward motion" is the right term here. Hurricanes cannot move in "reverse". Would "...before resuming its journey northeast" or something similar work better?
  • Changed to the suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Topics & content

• 1st paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "Of the five primary factors for rapid intensification described by Kaplan and DeMaria (2003), conditions were optimal for four of them." What are these conditions or factors?
  • Forgot to get the full text version of the referenced document. Waiting on a response in order to expand upon that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
    • I have received no reply on getting the full paper. All I can do is just list the five factors described in Kaplan and DeMaria (2003) but not specifically state which four were met. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Understandable. Good articles don't require perfection (this isn't WP:FAC), so I'll strike this issue.

Prose

• In the "Origins" section: Should "origins" in the first sentence be singular or plural? I'm actually unsure here. (This also applies to the section heading.) I guess it depends on whether you view the wave, depression, and trough as multiple individual origins or the interaction between the three as a singular origin. I'll leave this for you to decide. Alternatively, we could request someone with more English experience for a third opinion.
  • Origins would be appropriate here since Katrina developed from multiple systems rather than a single entity. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• In the "Origins" section, 6th sentence: "Convective burst" should probably link to convective burst, not convection, since it refers to a specific meteorological phenomenon and not just the general topic of atmospheric convection.
  • I don't believe that's a redlink that will ever see an article. A convective burst is just the abrupt formation of deep convection. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's a reasonable argument.

• The acronym "SST" is used only three times after definition, and the usage is somewhat spread across the article. Consider using the unabbreviated form. In any case, the use of "SST temperatures" is nonsensical and should be corrected.
  • Removed the acronym and the silly double temp. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 1st paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "With such favorable conditions, Katrina underwent two periods of rapid intensification from August 26 to 28, punctuated by an 18-hour pause on August 27." This is a very informal usage of "such". Consider replacing with a more formal synonym.
  • Changed it to "these" to avoid being dramatic. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks!

• 3rd paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "120 kJ cm^–2". Is kilojoules per unit area (square centimeters here) normally written like this? I would have expected it to be written as kJ/cm². (I know that technically these are identical, but I feel the latter is significantly more readable for less technically-inclined readers.)
  • That's how it was written in the cited paper. I'm fine adding the "/" if it's beneficial. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know which is easier for a layperson to read. Maybe we should get a third opinion from a non-subject matter expert?

  I checked with someone more familiar with technical aspects and it's purely personal preference. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• 3rd paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "OHC values exceeded 120 kJ cm–2, with sea temperatures of 79 °F (26 °C) extending to a depth of 360 ft (110 m)." I'm 99.9% confident that is an incorrect comma. However, I feel that this sentence should be fundamentally rewritten due to the dangling participle.
  • Moved it into the preceding sentence for context. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Much better.

• The abbreviation "hPa" (hectopascals) is never defined, and most readers will not recognize it. The wikilink just goes to the generic pascal page, so they can't find out that way either.
  • The lead of the Pascal (unit) page has the explanation: Common multiple units of the pascal are the hectopascal (1 hPa = 100 Pa), which is equal to one millibar... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 3rd paragraph of "Rapid intensification and peak strength": "By the latter half of August 28, Katrina became "exceptionally large", with tropical storm-force and hurricane-force winds extended 230 mi (370 km) and 105 mi (165 km) from its center respectively." This sentence needs a fundamental rewrite. The latter prepositional phrase is longer than the entire rest of the sentence, and the sentence is bookended by two prepositional phrases. Be active! Let your verbs do the talking! This helps reduce the "dryness" that readers often complain about when reading more technical articles. On a different note, who is being quoted as saying Katrina was "exceptionally large"?
  • For whatever reason I feel like this kind of grammar is a weak point of mine. I slightly modified the sentence and removed the trivial quote. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• 1st paragraph of "Gulf Coast landfalls": "However, this cycle was interrupted by an increase in wind shear and entrainment of dry air." This is another example of what I was just talking about. Try this: "However, an increase in wind shear and entrainment of dry air interrupted this cycle." See how it's both more active and more concise? Try going through the rest of the article and see if you can clean up any other similar sentences.
  • Changed to the suggested wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• Wikilink "entrainment".
  • Linked ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• 2nd paragraph of "Tornado outbreak and dissipation": "The NHC assessed Katrina's dissipation as a distinct entity by 12:00 UTC on August 31 as it was absorbed into the aforementioned frontal boundary over central Ohio." What aforementioned frontal boundary? You just talked about an atmospheric trough.
  • Changed it to trough. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing

• All sources appear reliable and are properly cited.
• Original research spot checks done. No original research found.

Images

• File:Katrina vs sea surface height.jpg: This picture lacks a scale, making it impossible to tell what the scale or range of values is.
  • I couldn't find a version of this image with a scale so I've opted for a different one that emphasizes the warm-core eddy. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. This new image is vastly superior.

• A number of images have captions that are very long. Try reducing some of these, either by moving information to the article body or by using more concise wording. (See MOS:CAPSUCCINCT.)
  • Chopped down most of them ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

    Much better! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright

• Copyright violation spot checks done. No copyright violations found.

More to come later. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: Thank you for starting this review. I've made suggested adjustments brought up so far. I'm in the middle of moving to a new place so it might take me a little time to reply to future comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't worry about the review; I'll leave it open as long as it takes for you to move and respond to everything. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Made adjustments and replies to most of your comments, have one or two more to go. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've crossed out the resolved issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Nudging Cyclonebiskit. Any updates? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: I'll be working on more shortly, been exhausted from work the last two weeks. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem, sir! I just wanted to make sure it wasn't forgotten. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Did a bit more digging and found some more journal articles I need to read through relating to this topic. I'll drop another message here when I feel all the necessary info is added. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I've done another pass through, and almost everything else has been resolved. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience Reaper Eternal! I think I got the last concern. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Cyclonebiskit, but unfortunately this ran into business trip followed by vacation for me so I wasn't on Wikipedia these past 2 weeks. I'll do a final read-through tomorrow (I just got home, exhausted) and it should be good to go. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, take your time and rest up ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Pre-FAC Peer Review

Ohai Wikipedians! Since I've had a few successful FAC's involving TC met histories, here's my review for this article, seeing as it could easily become a featured article with some minor tweaks.

Infobox

• Add Canada to areas affected (+any other areas?)
  • Added Canada ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Sometimes met history articles have a duration, listing how long it was active. Could be worth adding.
  • Added durations for TC period and entire existence since the span is significantly different ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead

• So the landfall date is the most important moment, in my opinion. The first paragraph is a pretty heavy on some meteorology terms, which is useful considering the type of article that it is. I just have to wonder if it might be worth adding "with its strongest landfall on August 29" to the opening sentence, or if that makes it too long.
  • I think that ends up cramming extra info in the opening sentence that isn't especially needed. We don't really need to hype up Katrina after all. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• while the trough came into play between August 17 and 23. - I appreciate the lack of jargon, but is there something else you could use other than "came into play"? This could be an opportunity to introduce a term, with something like "while the trough factored into its tropical cyclogenesis between August 17 and 23." Doesn't need to be that exact wording, of course, and it could be something more basic like "factored into its formation", any kind of wording that links the importance of the trough.
  • Tweaked the wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• "The mid-level remnants of Ten" - I've never personally been a fan of referring to unnamed tropical depressions by their number designation. I wouldn't have minded as much if you referred to it by its official designation 10L, which was the proper designation for that tropical cyclone. And that could be a way of providing the number (12L) for Katrina.
  • Hmm... I guess the reports do always say "Tropical Depression Ten" rather than just "Ten". The xxL designations really aren't used for public dissemination so I don't think it provides much to the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Shifting steering currents the following day caused the intensifying system to turn west toward South Florida." - you never really talked much about the movement, so either you should specify what those steering currents were, or keep it broad for the lead, leaving the specifics for the main part of the article.
  • I'll keep the lead broad, the specifics of why it moved aren't really vital to the brief summary. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• "The flat terrain of The Everglades" - are you sure The should be Capitalized?
  • It's not supposed to be, oops ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• "There, exceptionally favorable environmental conditions consisting of high sea surface temperatures, low wind shear, expansive outflow, and high ocean heat content fueled two periods of rapid intensification." - you mention both high sea surface temperatures and high ocean heat content. Is that really worth mentioning twice? Also, the outflow is more of a part of the storm structure, and less of a condition. That would be the upper-level anticyclone, but is that an environmental condition, or did the storm essentially develop it?
  • The anticyclone developed over the storm from what I can tell so I'll shift to that, and SSTs and OHC are two different things. One is temperature and the other is the energy provided by the warm waters plus the depth they reach. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• I'm gonna be annoying and bring up 1 minute vs 10 minute sustained winds, and wonder how you want to incorporate that. One thing I do is have a note
  • Ten minute winds don't come into play here so I'm not sure how that's relevant? The linked article for MSW details the necessary tangential information. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• "A record-breaking storm surge and destructive winds decimated coastal communities of Louisiana and Mississippi while the collapse of levees in New Orleans led to a prolonged humanitarian crisis." - I think the levee breaking was such a significant event that it could be its own sentence, give it room to breathe.
  • Split sentences ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• "It was soon absorbed by or merged with a cold front in the region the next day." - why the or?
  • Removed "or" ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Formation

• "and involve the interaction of three systems" - is "systems" too vague? Is "weather system" better? One of my focuses for this review is making sure it's short on jargon, and it's as clear as it can be. That's difficult when I've been tracking storms online for a few decades and use the jargon regularly, but the average reader might not be so familiar. So with that caveat, I'm going to point out other instances of this too.
  • Added "weather" ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• "a tropical wave emerged over the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of West Africa." - "off" or "from"?
  • "From" seems more appropriate, yeah. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Strong wind shear produced by an upper tropospheric trough over the western Atlantic caused the system to quickly degrade into a remnant low as it progressed west-northwest." - I think this should be two sentences, as by the end I'm not sure what the "it" refers to.
  • I think changing "the system" to "the depression" should deal with this issue. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• I like the note about NHC's rules on formation and continuity of remnants, just a minor qualm about it.

• "The former occurred with Hurricane Ivan in 2004 which maintained a distinct low-level circulation after becoming extratropical and later regenerating into a tropical storm over the Gulf of Mexico. The latter is the case with Tropical Depression Ten and Hurricane Katrina."

• So, by having "the latter", I might not be sure if that refers to what's immediately beforehand (the "regeneration into a TS over the GoM") or something two sentences prior. And while I like complexity of notes and sentences, sometimes the more complex sentence structures read difficult, particularly to non-native readers/speakers, or perhaps people of a lower reading level. So IDK what to do here, either clarify "the latter", or perhaps go into example when you list each possibility?

• I swapped the order of sentences around to have the example right after the situation so it's more clear. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• "The upper-tropospheric trough draped across the western Atlantic in the week leading to Katrina's formation provided the final factor leading to the hurricane's genesis." - I think it's just a tad bit too complex with the current wording. I get what you're saying, and it's a nice way of describing the sequence of events, but perhaps switch the flow around.
  • I'm not sure what you mean here. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• You write "ex-Ten". It's not disallowed, but I figured I'd bring it up, since it's not a wording that pops up in every article. It's probably fine here, just something to think about.
  • Changed it to just "the remnants of Ten" and will be removing the "Ex-Katrina" later in the article. Just more straightforward that way. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• What is "A vorticity maximum"? In most of the article, maximum is associated with winds, so I just wanted to double check. (I know what you mean, you know what it means, but the average reader? ._. )
  • I think having "vorticity" linked earlier in the paragraph will help that out. "Maximum" is a straightforward word so I don't think it's overly complicated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Initial development

• When I read "78 kJ cm–2" - it reminded me that you'll probably get asked in the future to wikilink all units and explain them upon their first usage. That includes kJ cm-2, mi, mph, m, UTC, whatnot.
  • Basic units like distance and temperature shouldn't be linked per WP:OVERLINK, but I added others. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Convection deepened throughout August 23 into August 24—with some cloud tops reaching −112 °F (−80 °C)[14]—and a defined banding feature began wrapping around the northern side of the depression." - having the reference where it is makes the parenthesis, ref, and endash all a little clunky. Worth splitting or rewriting a bit.
  • Split into two sentences. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Based on aircraft reconnaissance data, the NHC assessed the depression to have intensified into a tropical storm over the central Bahamas by 12:00 UTC." - the previous sentence mentioned two dates, so probably best to add the date.
  • Added ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "A new ridge along the United States Gulf Coast takes its place" - present tense?
  • Took :P ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• The low-lying, swampy terrain of the Everglades had little effect on Katrina's structure and its overall appearance improved as it traversed the Peninsula;[26] meteorologists described it as "still...an impressive cyclone." - I like this bit, but I think it should be split into two sentences, as the "its" is unclear at first if "it" refers to the swampy terrain appearance improving or the storm structure improving. It's silly to point out, but I want the article to be crystal clear before its inevitable FAC.
  • Simple split ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

RI

• "The Dry Tortugas observed sustained hurricane-force winds, with a peak gust of 105 mph (169 km/h),[24] late in the day as Katrina moved toward the central Gulf. " - so this bugged me a bit where the reference was. IDK if it's a policy to have the references at the end of the sentence, or if it's OK being in the middle, but something to think about.
  • Having a citation after a comma is fine per WP:CITEFOOT. The thinking I used was more directly referencing the information since the following sentence and a half is on a different page of the report. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• An expansive upper-level anticylcone "dominated the entire Gulf of Mexico", producing an environment of low wind shear and ample outflow. - who's quote was this? I supposed referring to a system "dominating" is a useful and poetic word, so it could be useful adding "as described by weather researcher Richard Pasch". If the quote isn't that necessary, try rewording to avoid it.
  • Tossed out the quote in favor of "overspread" ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Two warm-core eddies, which broke off the Gulf Loop Current, with temperatures exceeding 88 °F (31 °C) were present." - the verb finally being the penultimate word threw me off a bit.
  • Restructured. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Of the five primary factors for rapid intensification described by Kaplan and DeMaria (2003), conditions were optimal for four of them." - the only one not being...?
  • I couldn't find it and can't access the paper... *sigh* ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Throughout both lightning outbreaks, a total of 684 strikes were detected." - by what?
  • Added ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Any other gusts or notable readings from recon near its peak?
  • Added dropsonde and SFMR data. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Landfall

• Is it worth mentioning the operational landfall estimate? [2]
  • I don't believe it is. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "Upon entering the Gulf of Mexico, it became clear to forecasters at the NHC that Katrina was tracking significantly more west of the originally expected landfall in the Florida Panhandle and posed an imminent threat to Louisiana and Mississippi." - too much for one sentence. It's also a garden path sentence.
  • Truncated and removed the "imminent threat" part ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• Worth linking high water mark?
  • Can't hurt ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "The massive surge despite Katrina's weakening state as it moved ashore is attributed to its intensity the day prior and immense size. " - wonky wording
  • Revised the wording. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Tornado/dissipation

• I feel like the Fujita scale should be written out/mentioned upon its first usage.
  • Added ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "18 of these were in Georgia, a daily record for the month of August" - for the state?
  • Clarified ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "This led to a "forceful removal" of the storm's warm core which in turn caused a near-instantaneous transition into an extratropical cyclone that day.August 30." - something happened at the end with the date. Also, who said this quote? Any way to reword it so you don't have an unattributed quote?
  • Removed the quote ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• I feel like the part with - "The dissociated anticyclone" - should be at the end. That way, the Ex-Katrina frontal low can have more continuity with the rest of the narrative, and then the last part is more of a nice final settling of the wind, closing the chaotic chapter that once was. Or if you like the current arrangement, that's fine too. Just something I noticed.
  • I think it's fine with the order it's in now so it concludes with Katrina's dissipation. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
• "A stationary low to the north over James Bay caused ex-Katrina to turn north and meander over Quebec for several days." - the two "north"s threw me off a bit
  • Removed the first one ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

A great article all around. I was pretty nitpicky with my comments, trying to come up with stuff that would probably show up in the inevitable FAC. Lemme know if you have any questions, @Cyclonebiskit:. Great work here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the thorough review Hurricanehink! All the comments should be addressed minus the Kaplan and DeMaria (2003) paper thing... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Outstanding FAC citation checks

The following is copied from FAC1 $Citation checks. These points need to be addressed before a second nomination. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Checking for citation consistency and correctness here. User:Cyclonebiskit, please deal with Sandy's comments first (and as "straight away" as possible) since they involve the CCI check. -- Mirokado (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• While doing my CCI check, I have to make sure all links are live, or Earwig can't detect copyvio (none found so far), but this source is to a dead link, found in archive.org, which is concerning as it is undergraduate research-- probably not a high-quality source:

  https://web.archive.org/web/20211219212153/https://www.atms.unca.edu/chennon/research/documents/erb_ncur2006_preprint.pdf SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Something wonky: this goes to Hurricane Rita ??

  https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/eye-hurricane-photos-20130809 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is a dead link, update pls so I can run Earwig:

  https://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• ??? http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/ffc/pdf/katrina.pdf Not loading for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
• Law, Kevin (2011). The Impact of Oceanic Heat Content on the Rapid Intensification of Atlantic Hurricanes (Report). Recent Hurricane Research - Climate, Dynamics, and Societal Impacts. Marshall University. pp. 331–354.: please expand this citation to include:
  • the article is available as a free-to-read pdf from S2CID 135431285. Marshall University is I think Law's institution. user:SandyGeorgia: I think this will be another url for Earwig.
  • it is as far as I can tell a chapter in this ebook Recent Hurricane Research... edited by Anthony Lupo (2011), published by IntechOpen, isbn 978-953-51-4907-1, which is only available behind a paywall despite the publisher's name. -- Mirokado (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Lillibridge et al.: dead link. It looks as if this is a problem on the NOAA site, which shows the article in a search by title, but the search link is itself dead. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• David L. Johnson (June 2006): Another dead link from NOAA. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Other citation problems:

• Bender III et al. 2010: The page range is 1012–1028, see the Bibcode etc. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Chen et al. 2018: The page range is 287–306, see the Bibcode etc.
• Green, Benjamin W.; Zhang, Fuqing; Markowsk, Paul (December 2011): Markowsk --> Markowski. -- Mirokado (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Jaimes & Shay 2009: The journal is Monthly Weather Review according to Bibcode and Doi.
• Kafatos et al. 2006: Geophysical Research Letters uses a CiteID (in this case L17802) to locate each article, and page numbers such as 1–5 for pages within the article. This is an ID within the journal, so not suitable for the |id= parameter which is for unique identifiers. I think it would be OK to use |page=L17802 for this citation. The 1–5 page numbers for the ref callouts are fine. Same applies to other GRL citations. See "In-source locations" in the cite journal documentation.
• Needham and Keim 2014: The S2CID is 262380488.
• Rappaport et al. 2010: It looks as if we should say "Rappaport, Edward N." for consistency with the other authors who have second initials, see Bibcode.
• The {{sfn}} invocations for Jaimes & Shay 2009, Needham and Keim 2014 are inconsistent. {{sfn|Jaimes|Shay|2009|p=4195}} is the more conventional usage, so I would go for that. Please make all the two-author sfn invocations consistent. -- Mirokado (talk) 13:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
• Please update the callouts and citations such as Bender III et al., Didlake Jr. et al., Lee et al. (those are the three I have noticed) to conform with MOS:JR:
  • "When the surname is shown first, the suffix follows the given name", without an extra preceding comma, thus for our citations: Didlake, Anthony C. Jr.; ...
  • "When the given name is omitted, omit the suffix ... except where the context requires disambiguation", thus for our callouts: Bender et al. 2010. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
• Knabb, Richard D. (August 24, 2005): The date in the article is August 23, 2005).
• Hurricane Katrina: A National Still Unprepared: National --> Nation. -- Mirokado (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Beven, Jack L.; Berg, Robbie; Hagen, Andrew H. (May 17, 2019): the article lists the authors as: "John L. Beven II, Robbie Berg, and Andrew Hagen".
• Williams, Jack (September 7, 2012): this should be marked "registration required". The archive is free to read. -- Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Timeline of Hurricane Katrina into Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was withdrawn. _ZZ^Z'S 10:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Articles like this usually don't exist and is created for season articles, not tropical cyclones. Also, the article is poorly sourced with numerous unsourced paragraphs compared to the destination article, which is a GA. For the aftermath, that can be merged into Hurricane Katrina. Do we really need two articles covering the same topic in a different style? _ZZ^Z'S 09:00, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Support - I agree, the article is really redundant when its meteorological history article exists, and it can easily be merged there and the main article for the aftermath section. ~ Sandy14156 (Talk ✉️) 00:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina (2nd nomination) participants: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs), Dronebogus (talk · contribs), Jasper Deng (talk · contribs), KN2731 (talk · contribs), Hurricanehink (talk · contribs), Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs), A.WagnerC (talk · contribs), DiscoA340 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose merge per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina (2nd nomination). Timeline of Hurricane Katrina is a chronological list of "the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it" (quoting from the how-to guide Wikipedia:Timeline). It is not a duplicate of any other article because no other article aims to present a chronological history of Hurricane Katrina. I view the timeline article as complementary to all the other articles. I am also opposing a merge per Postdlf (talk · contribs), who wrote this in 2014 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Hurricane Katrina:

  what the nominator sees a minus—that this combines, in chronological order, information found at multiple articles on Katrina—I see as a plus. A timeline is going to be most useful when it can condense an important sequence of events that are divided over multiple articles (I count at least eighteen articles just about Katrina and its aftermath), and where that sequence is of utmost importance to the subject. What happened when, in terms of the development and track of the storm, preparation efforts, when levees broke and areas were flooded, and what the rescue effort and other response was at each stage, etc., etc., is critical to an understanding of Katrina scientifically and historically. Really all we have here from the nomination and the sole "delete" !vote so far is the mistaken belief that "content forks" are an inherently bad thing and complaints about mere cleanup issues.

  Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina is confined to discussing only the meteorological events on the Timeline of Hurricane Katrina so a merge would result in the loss of all non-meteorological content. Here is a non-exhaustive list of non-metereological examples from the timeline: evacuations, emergency declarations, FEMA and Homeland Security activities, damage to the Superdome, the relaxation of federal fuel and emissions standards in response to Katrina, Mayor Nagin ordering New Orleans's police force to abandon search-and-rescue missions in order to turn their attention toward controlling looting, USCG helicopters rescued 1,259 more people from roof tops to total of 1,609, and the U.S. Senate passed a relief package. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Cunard (talk · contribs) - an easy solution is that any of the non-meteorological content can be merged into the Hurricane Katrina article, if it isn't already mentioned. For instance, the evacuations, emergency declarations, FEMA, Superdome, all of that is already in the Katrina article, which also has a chronological order to it: starts with the storm history, the preparations, the actual impacts, and then the aftermath, including, the rescues and the relief packages. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Two relevant guidelines and how-to guides:
  1. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Lists of works and timelines says, "Timelines and chronologies can be a useful supplement to prose descriptions of real-world histories."
  2. Wikipedia:Timeline says, "Timelines describe the events that occurred before another event, leading up to it, causing it, and also those that occurred right afterward that were attributable to it."
  Timeline of Hurricane Katrina provides a chronological ordering of events (meteorological or non-meteorological) related to Hurricane Katrina. It is "a useful supplement" to the prose article Hurricane Katrina precisely because its chronological presentation. A merge to Hurricane Katrina would result in the loss of this chronological way of presenting the facts of this events. Per Postdlf's excellent explanation that I quoted above, I consider Timeline of Hurricane Katrina to be complementary to—not duplicative of—Hurricane Katrina and Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina. Cunard (talk) 05:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Cunard and also the fact that Katrina is nearly 11,000 words, thus cannot handle any additional content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.21.13.214 (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – Per other comments here. No reason to try to jam this into another article. United States Man (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination for now. --_ZZ^Z'S 10:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.