# Talk:Hurricane Anita

Anything on impact. Jdorje 21:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Not much info on impact, given that it hit in east nowhere in a time where information outside the US often came in a trickle. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:03, 6 February 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)

One thing to bear in mind is that the best track data does not state Anita dissipated. If you look at a more blatant example, 1996's Cesar the best track gives no indication it continued as Douglas. What can be seen though in the last two BT data points for Anita say at 0000 it was at 22.5N 101.0W and at 0600 it was at 22.0N 103.0W. The first mention of the location of TD11 in the EPHC report is at 1200 when it was located at 21.5N 105.5W. Along with the text what the text from the official (the EPHC) source says that track is obviously continuous. Its the same storm (another track map needed). Also the MWR linked in this article on page 15 shows Anita and a Pacific TD as forming from the same wave.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:20, 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)

Cool. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 19:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good! Jake52 My talk 03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we add it to the article? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 13:23, 14 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)

I have found another source suggesting a category 4 landfall https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/NWS-NHC-1978-6.pdf. However, other sources (including the Hurricane Research Division's own blog) still list the storm as a category 5 upon landfall. It is possible that the aforementioned source was found to be in error at some later point but I do not know when or if this could have happened. As the comment above mentions, I hope reanalysis is able to eventually shed some light on this unusual case.  MCRPY22 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2023 (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)

Over half the sources for this article, including the ones used for the bulk of the preparations, impact, and aftermath sections are from newspaper articles that are no longer linked. I haven't found them on the newspaper archive I use so far. Also we've still never resolved how exactly to treat this storm landfall-wise whether it was a cat 4 or 5 and that problem bleeds into other articles. And there's three images of the hurricane that all kinda show the same thing. Also there are statements like that it was the first major hurricane to form in the Gulf since Eloise, which is probably true but there's no source. This stuff should be addressed, or this article should probably lose it's "GA" status. I can try to improve it but hopefully some others can help here. MCRPY22 (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC)