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? Tito xd (?!? - 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. Tito xd (?!? - 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. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 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. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:TAG, one of the guidelines says:

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. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 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. 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. Tito xd (?!? - 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)

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?
 * 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,. Great work here. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 06:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the thorough review ! 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 Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Something wonky: this goes to Hurricane Rita ??
 * https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/eye-hurricane-photos-20130809 Sandy Georgia (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 Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ??? http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/ffc/pdf/katrina.pdf Not loading for me.  Sandy Georgia  (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 parameter which is for unique identifiers. I think it would be OK to use  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 invocations for Jaimes & Shay 2009, Needham and Keim 2014 are inconsistent.  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)