Talk:2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles 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 reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Nomination for GA

This article is really starting to look great everyone... well done! With that being said, I am nominating this article for GA status. Triberocker (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think it's a bit early? The death count is not even final yet...-RunningOnBrains 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree that it is too early - surveys are still underway and the death toll is not known. I failed it for that reason...the article is way too unstable. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that the flow of information has calmed down and the article has stabilized, it may be time for reassessment. In my opinion, it should become a GA if not later on an FA. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Second. ~ Triberocker (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, although I certainly wouldn't go to FA until the NCDC assessments are available (my guess is this summer, since they are up to October 2007 now - the October 18 outbreak needs to be updated for that soon). CrazyC83 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have went ahead and renominated, as you can see above. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Memphis tornado track map

[1] Is this the most recent tornado track map. If so there have been at least 2 other tornadoes (both EF0) in Shelby County while an EF0 occured just south of the state line (I believe this one is on the list). That may explain why those power flashes seen from that WREG tower cam were far apart, there may have been satellite tornadoes accompanying the main tornado. If someone can confirm that it is the most recent, I can add the 2 additionnal Shelby county tornadoes on the list and that would make 80 confirmed tornadoes with still most of the Arkansas section of the NWS Memphis area left. --JForget 00:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New death?

I could not find a new reference for the death, even after a fairly exhaustive search. It should be removed, after all, the initial report was according to a Daviess County school official. It would probably be best for someone else to remove it, after the mess I caused with references when I added it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    There are a couple issues. First, where it says Ahead of the squall line, the cap took longer than expected to break.. Most people will not know what the "cap" is referring to, so you might want to clarify.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    The last two paragraphs in the "Meteorological Synopsis" need to be sourced, and reference number 31 needs to be {{Cite web}}
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I've put the article on hold for minor improvements to be made. Thank you for you hard work in improving the article thus far, and good luck in improving it to GA status. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 16:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've wikilinked capping inversion. Is that sufficient or do you still think there needs to be more detail? Gopher backer (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest just giving a breif explaination so the average reader can get an idea of what is is without wandering to other articles. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 18:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I put in a three sentence explanation referenced to the NWS Norman's storm spotter glossary. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It might sound strange, but could I cite a radar loop in the Meterological Sypnosis section? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I personally think it would be fine, but people might complain about it being OR. I'll ask around and see if you can. Juliancolton (St. Patrick's day) 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We still need references in sypnosis section, I have tagged the sentences that need references. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:Some of the phrases which has the citation needed - the source is a little further down the paragraph, sure I could move the sources further up the text if needed. Also, if all the citations needed tags can be dealt, this might very well be an FA (rather then GA) candidate especially compared to other similar sized articles that have lesser sources but are FA rated. --JForget 15:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I more or less put those tags there as reminders to find references within the article. If you would be willing to do that I would be happy, I'm working my own article, March 2008 Midwest floods. As for a possible FAC, it would probably be best to wait for Storm Data to come out from the NCDC. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably the hardest thing to find references for is the sypnosis. I have suggested using the OHX radar loop as a reference for the convective mode. I put this at the original research noticeboard, but no noe responded. I am hoping to get a few more opinions on this. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC) How do you make access dates normal, full links? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The NWS Nashville could be a source for the radar loop of the Memphis-Jackson, Hardin County-Nashville and the first fatal Kentucky tornado supercells. It stops before the Alabama storms are developing. For the Alabama storms, maybe the ABC 33-40 blog would help. Yeah I know blogs are not the best, but ABC 33-40 is known for having one of the best tornado coverages in the States with complete wall-to-wall live coverages on TV and on the web when a tornado is issued as well as frequent updates on blogs, not only alabamawx.com but also James Spann's own blog. They list all warnings and details info on storms moving through the area even when it is not severe. So alabamawx.com might be a very reliable source anyways. For the tracks and tornado touchdowns and times, the NWS survey pages should been enough. --JForget 16:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As for dates, I think if you put like: accessdate = 2008-02-06, it will give wikilink access to the date (Feb 6) and the year. You don't need to put the wikilinks, it will create the links automatically.--JForget 16:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I would consider those blogs somewhat reliable sources. I still think some people might consider the radar loop OR, it would be nice if there was some response on the noticeboard. Also, thanks for the help with dates, I have fixed that. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed you removed some {{fact}} tags from the lead. I have never read WP:CITE, but I personally think things should be cited in the lead and their own section. I just thought I better bring it up here before I did anything. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

We now have no {{fact}} templates in the entire article. In other words, no more references are needed! This really could be a FA, Storm Data or not. Thank you and great job to all, but especially to JForget. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I will check tomorrow or in the coming days for dead links, I think there may be a couple of them - I'm thinking especially the TV stations articles. --JForget 03:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that Juliancolton put a {{fact}} template on the end of a sentence saying there were no voting issues. In my opinion, the lack of a reference is the reference. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It can be, in theory, but I would rather see one. IMO, there could be one out there, but we just havn't found it. You can never be sure that there is no piece of info on the internet. This is why I would rather see a reference stating the fact. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence, because it doesn't look to be at the right place - the paragraph is about the flooding. If it should be mentionned it should be on the lead instead. Also references 27 (NWS Little Rock public statement), 46 (NWS Nashville Storm Report), 48 (MSNBC.com), 90 (The Indy Channel.com, 97 (WSMV Nashville) and 99 (Tennessee.gov) are currently deadlinks and ref no 8 (the list of high risk days, if very slow (actually it is directed from webarchives.org). If needed Reference 8 can be directed to the wiki article simply unless there is another source. The rest I will (or someone else) check on later - perhaps today or sometimes this week--JForget 15:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should not be used as references. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Other then the site currently used as sourced, the only non-webarchive.org source regarding that the only other SPC high risk is in February 1998, is coming from... surprise James Spann and the ABC 33-40 weather blog. Does the SPC have a map of the Convective Outlook for February 10, 1998? Anyways, the dead links have been dealt--JForget 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the only other known high risk in February. It is possible (but not certain) that there were others (probably before 1992 or so), but there is nothing online to prove them. The SPC archives only go back to 2000; other chasers' archives and NWS office archives (if available) are required for older ones. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

An encylopedic article is no place for a "human-interest" story of a baby being thrown 100 yards and its mother being killed. Those stories are for Storm Stories, and the news, although it should be on neither, because they have them just to get higher ratings. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] GA pass

Seeing that the issues with the references have been addressed, I am happy to say that the article passes GA. Good work, and I look foreward to seeing this being shipped off to FAC. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some NCDC data out

They updated the NCDC data up to February 28 so some of the tornadoes now are listed (including some that may be newly discovered). However, some are still missing so the numbers are not final yet. I know NWS Memphis hasn't put out anything yet, and that represents a large proportion of the property damage. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was looking at that and wondering why it only showed 48 deaths for the outbreak. That would explain it. -RunningOnBrains 00:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
A good example for such an early discreptancy was the March 1, 2007 outbreak - early data came out but many tornadoes in the NWS Peachtree City area took longer to include. With those added, the final damage estimate ballooned to over $400 million in the NWS raw data (most recent estimate was about $580M due to the fact that the numbers cover wide ranges for high-damage tornadoes). For this outbreak, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the final damage number over $1 billion. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

So the article failed its first FAC. I believe this could be Featured Article material at some point, but I also believe it was nominated too soon after the event: official Storm Data for the event is just now coming out. I'll be going through and making improvements where I see them, and I think this article should be ready for another Featured Article nomination in a few months.

PS I apologize for not helping the original FAC, I've just finished a school-induced wikibreak. -RunningOnBrains 04:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on the comments from FAC, I went through the article an tried to improve the flow (but I didn't get to this until after the review had been closed). So hopefully that concern should be addressed, but feel free to look for areas that still might be choppy. I agree though that at this point it might be best to wait for all the NCDC data to come out and squared away. Gopher backer (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree it was too fast to have nominated it like it was only five weeks after been promoted to GA and only three months after the event. Although I don't see any objections to upgrade its rating to A-class after we can add the updated data from the SPC. I would suggest to re-nominate it during the Fall so maybe by the 1st anniversary of the event it will be the main page featured article like what they did with the Virginia Tech shooting article for April 16.--JForget 22:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)