# Talk:Hurricane Klaus (1990)

An image is needed to go in the infobox. Jdorje 01:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Have fun in finding one - if it weren't retired (a questionable decision in many minds), I doubt this storm would have its own page... CrazyC83 02:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Got one, believe it or not. The home page is located here. Hurricanehink 06:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Impact. Jdorje 09:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, there's so little information. I'm listing some links in case anyone wants to do this one (though it will probably be me... oh well).
Overall Effects
Dam Effects
South Carolina Details
Hurricanehink 03:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn NHC! In the Marco report, they are about to get to the damage report (see the 2nd page of the Marco report), but they they skip to something else! Why is there no information on this storm?!?! Hurricanehink 00:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, is this better than a Start article? Hurricanehink 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah.  Can you add inline sources for the storm history section? Jdorje 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Sure. Hurricanehink 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Should it be renamed Hurricane Klaus-Marco? Marco is an important aspect of the article, and contributed as much damage as Klaus did. Hurricanehink 02:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I think that would imply they are the same storm (like the crossover hurricanes).  But maybe Hurricane Marco should redirect here. Jdorje 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
But Hurricane Marco should stay as the redirect, as this Marco was a tropical storm. You're right about crossovers, but technically Marco formed from a secondary area of low pressure off of the main system, Hurricane Klaus. They were sort of the same system, and they did combine later on for the flooding. You are right, it would be confusing for the title, though. Maybe mention it more in detail for the intro? Like, 'Hurricane Klaus was a hurricane in October of 1990 that, when combined with Tropical Storm Marco, produced torrential rainfall across the southeastern United States.  I don't know what is the best solution, but something should be done, IMO. Also, is this yet a B Class article? If not, what else can be done while my mind is on this mid-understood storm? (I say misunderstood because, if you look just a half of a page up, it is said its retirement is questionable due to lack of information). Hurricanehink 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to disagree on the two storms being part of the same system.  Klaus formed from a tropical wave, and a new upper low formed the initially subtropical cyclone that became Marco, which would have happenned if Klaus had been there or not.  There has been a similar debate raging about the "two Gordons" of 1994...one of these evolutions (Marco/Klaus 1990 and Gordon part 1/Gordon part 2 of 1994) must be fixed for the HURDAT database to be more consistent.  Without the upper low and Marco's formation, Klaus might have gone up to strike the Carolinas as a more significant system.  Instead, Klaus' old circulation center went up the Florida east coast before becoming obscured in the Southeast. Thegreatdr 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
True, they were not the exact same system. However, Marco would have likely never occurred if it weren't for Klaus. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well it still lacks metric in most places.  Not sure if that is (or should be) a requirement for B-class (probably it should). Jdorje 03:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, I bolded Marco in the intro, but I'm not sure if this is enough.  The article pretty much covers marco in full (e.g., the florida section) so it does need full coverage in the intro. Jdorje 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess that's enough... Hurricanehink 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This season's TS Marco is almost 100% more notable in almost 100% of the ways. Rather then creating a Marco article (it runs together with Klaus too much) perhaps we could add a section all about Marco to this article? Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that when I first made the article, that is fine with me. Marco and Klaus combined with the cold front to cause the 10-15 inches of rain. In addition, Marco developed out of a low pressure center on the western edge of Klaus. Anyone disagree? Hurricanehink 19:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the idea of naming it Marco-Klaus, since Marco absorbed Klaus right as it was getting to the lower 48.  Thegreatdr 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, that sounds good. I was initially thinking against it, but Joan, Klaus, and Hattie all have the EPAC storms with them. Though we havn't done it yet for an Atlantic storm, I think this situation could warrant it, so Hurricane Klaus-Marco works. Klaus should be first as it was retired and was the first storm. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a different situation than Hattie/Simone/Inga.  In that case, the same low crossed the central American isthmus twice.  In this case, a new system aloft which dived out of the westerlies formed Marco.  Marco wasn't a reformation of Klaus.  The initially subtropical system absorbed/sheared Klaus to death. Thegreatdr 20:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was more thinking in general that a retired name would share a name. Yea, the storms were different. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So what are we going to do? If Marco is added, then more Florida impact could be added. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So what country requested the retirement of this name?  Was it the United States?  The Bahamas?  Some Leeward Island or other? Jdorje 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
No idea where to find that information. Websites I've looked said Martinique, but they don't mention the Southeast United States at all. I would personally guess South Carolina, where most of the destruction was. Hurricanehink 13:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps we should dig very deep into why Martinique requested the retirement of this name.  What damage was done there?  Perhaps it was worse than any of us really know... I note that I've not seen Martinique request the retirement of other storm names.  Was Klaus their worst storm up to that point? PenguinCDF 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure Martinique requested it? According to what I've read, the lopsided circulation reduced damage to a minima. Where can you find a list of retired names and which country requested their retirement? Hurricanehink 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The minimal damage was in the Leeward Islands.  Martinique (the first island south of those islands) had flooding that left 6 dead and 1500 displaced (finally found the link to the 1990 flood archives).  I can't seem to access the Klaus report from the NHC at this time, but it seems the flooding was enough to merit a request from Martinique.  To answer your question, whenever I come across a list of retired names online, the list typically mentions what places were affected.  Every list I come across only shows Martinique in reference to Klaus, not Georgia or South Carolina. PenguinCDF 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, nicely done! Hurricanehink 22:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
1500 homeless out of a population of 350,000 is quite large - comparable to Katrina's displacement in the United States, though obviously very localized.  However this should be explained in the article. — jdorje (talk) 02:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It was described briefly by NOAA Public Affairs. Thegreatdr 20:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In the Aftermath section it says France retired it. --12george1 (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, for Martinique. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You all are fortunate indeed in reverting back to 19.89" for the maximum in Georgia for Marco/Klaus.  Until today, it was uncertain if Louisville 1E had received 12 or 20" of rain.  A nice woman from the Georgia State Climatology office mentioned that the initial NCDC rainfall data I unearthed was incorrect from their website, my e-mail alerted them to the error.  I'm starting to go back through Storm Data and check for any additional information, after Marco/Klaus (1990) and Chris (1982) turned up some unexpected finds.  Thegreatdr 22:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Preps and aftermath. Maybe some more damage photos. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  (good coverage of sources, but may need more in lead, apart from that, they were excellent placed) b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.
 (no edits wars etc.)
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
Here is a greater analysis of my findings:

I can find no original research, however the lead contains no references, but as there are no major citings, I am willing to view it as a minor. Y
All images were appropriately tagged. Y
There was a use of images, which helped improve the readability which was already goodY
Only a few grammar mistakes, with commas and tagging etc., but most has been sorted by me. Y
All references used were independent and reliable. Y
There was a correct use of cited sources, which were placed in the appropriate place (after the punctuation)Y
The prose was very good. Y
Note:Most of the above was lifted from Tropical Storm Marco (1990), which had the same editors, same prose, and a hurricane which was relevant to TS Marco.

This is a good article, and I am willing to  pass this article on the basis that references in the lead will either not be seen as relevant or will be improved by the nominatin editor. Well done to the editors involved. Rudget talk 17:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Klaus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071030183816/http://radar.meas.ncsu.edu/projects/SERCCreport1.pdf to http://radar.meas.ncsu.edu/projects/SERCCreport1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)