Talk:April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article related to tornadoes is part of the Tornadoes and Related Events sub-project of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

We're streaming WSMV on our site (11Alive.com), and they've pointed out yet another cell that is about to nail the city of Nashville yet again -- making the third major cell in the past three hours. --Mhking 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is their worst outbreak in eight years...there have been many more tornadoes than we have listed because the NWS office was shut down for a while there. When everything calms down, I will write a special section for the north Nashville area supercell. CrazyC83 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I knew this was going to happen, and the funny thing is I thought of another tornado outbreak after the one that happened on April 2 of this year. I'm looking at the radar and there has to be more then 50 tornados already by now. Could this outbreak cause a F5 which we have been all waiting for years? I saw that cell go by Nashville and i'm shocked, I wonder what reports will come out of that. I also checked the NWS and the area of Tornado watch's is insane. 216.110.254.167 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Gallatin was an F3 based on damage pictures. But who knows, maybe an F5 later this evening somewhere? (Hopefully everyone is well-prepared though!!!) CrazyC83 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching that next watch box to the south, across northern MS/AL. There's enough convection in front of that to explode moreso below it. Watch the cells near Meridian and moving up toward Decatur/Huntsville. --Mhking 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the first time I've seen the SPC use a 60% probability for tornadoes within 25 miles of a point in a convective outlook. This is truly amazing... and tragic... I really want to be down there right now, but I'm sitting here in Michigan north of the warm sector. Maybe later this month... or May. A repeat of the Hudsonville-Standale Tornado of April 1956 is looooong overdue. —BazookaJoe 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Timing note and title 2 Gallatin radar 3 Confirmed tornadoes 4 A few quick review comments 5 GA Passed

[edit] Timing note and title

If the outbreak redevelops tomorrow or holds into tomorrow morning (after dawn), the title will change to April 6-8 and tomorrow will be covered here. It is hard to say what will happen. CrazyC83 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it was holding together late last night and then started breaking up a bit. However, the line is still there and I see a hook shaped radar band!! It's a hook and you know what that means. There is also still some tornados ocurring right now but not nearly as much. I have a really sweet radar image that is a Supercell, where could it go? Can someone check that hook because it's a well formed one. 216.110.254.167 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gallatin radar

I don't know much about Wikipedia or how to add to articles, so maybe someone could help me out. I was watching the storms blow up in TN on radar, and I saved one radar image of a rather impressive cell with a classic hook echo indicating a strong tornado. It just happened to be of the supercell that hit Sumner county. This image is probably 5-10min before the tornado struck Gallatin. Maybe someone can make use of it in the article showing how these cells look like on radar?

http://www.altarf.net/misc/TNradar040706.gif

I could check to see if I can add that but I have 2 radar images that are really cool and they are from WHNT-TV (Armor 19 radar) and they show tornado Super-cells. I tried to post them here but it didn't work. 216.110.254.167 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confirmed tornadoes

Here's some info from the National Weather Service on the confirmed tornadoes, now that most of the storm surveys are done. Kaldari 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the NWS has revised some of their reports. For example, there are now 3 confirmed F3 tornado touchdowns instead of 2. Kaldari 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The confirmed tornadoes list is a mess. The list was compiled using preliminary data and never revised, plus all the sources that are linked to are no longer there, so no one can verify any of the lists. The source links need to be updated to link to the proper pages (which are now probably archived). I do not believe this article should pass a Good Article nomination until these problems are addressed. Kaldari 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to the NCDC site and completely revised the Confirmed Tornadoes list using the data. They finalized it as two F3's. CrazyC83 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few quick review comments

I was looking at this article from the Good Article review page, and while I'm not ready to do a full review yet, I have a couple comments:

The References section just has a lot of raw HTML links. They should really be listed with the article title, date of publication, and so on. Also, if a reference is used more than once in the article, it's more concise to put in a reference once like this: <ref name="linger">{{cite news| url=http://www.gallatinnewsexaminer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061007/COUNTY08/610070334 |title=Storms' losses linger |publisher=Gallatin News-Examiner |date=2006-10-07 |accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref>. Then, to use the same reference later on, just put in <ref name="linger"/>. See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes for some more information. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To increase the article's readability, I am going to split the list of confirmed tornadoes to a seperate article. -Runningonbrains 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

It seems the concern over cite format has been addressed, and the list was moved out, so it seems to me this is a GA. Be careful about using POV language though, its true that factually a tornado is going to be devastating, but words like that are used so much in the article it sort of seems like the article takes a turn for the dramatic side. But, I don't think that's POV enough for it not to be a GA. Homestarmy 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)