Talk:Evansville Tornado of November 2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Evansville Tornado of November 2005 article.
Article policies
Good article Evansville Tornado of November 2005 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.
WikiProject Severe weather This article is part of WikiProject Severe weather, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to severe weather. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Severe weather.

Contents

[edit] Threat continues...

There are still many severe thunderstorms and a supercell line running from northern Ontario, across the Great Lakes, through Ohio and Kentucky down to Tennessee...I wouldn't be surprised if there are more tornadoes this afternoon through eastern North America. If it becomes an outbreak, we'd need to rename this page. CrazyC83 16:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Holderca1 16:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. The tornado only existed in Henderson Co, Vanderburgh Co, and Warrick. The system may be elsewhere but it more than likely won't cause the same devestation. Falphin 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. If this single tornado is part of a larger outbreak of tornadoes, then it should be renamed to include all those other tornadoes. It wasn't meant that this particular tornado would cause more damage. For example see the August 18, 2005, Wisconsin tornado outbreak. --Holderca1 19:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Thats what I'm not sure about. Even if this is renamed November 2005 tornado outbreak, the article is almost completely going to be about the Southern Indiana tornado because the others (hopefully) won't cause much damage. I hope that makes since. While the title will be more correct it won't fit the content of the article. Falphin 19:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I added earlier(but for some reason my edit never appeared) that I will support a move if signficant damage or a local name is used. I will support the 2005 Tornado Outbreak as that is still representive enough. Especially,if this article continues to expand. I was more so afraid of a title like, "November 2005 Tornado Outbreak" which really is to broad for the topic. Falphin 00:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

NOAA needs to start taking some pictures so we can include them in the article. Amazing some of the pictures I have seen where only a concrete slab remains where a house once stood. Too bad they aren't public domain. --Holderca1 18:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Only a concrete slab? That would be F5 damage if the debris was swept away and an F4 if the debris is laying over the slab...also the Munfordville tornado, based on the descriptions I have, is likely an F2. CrazyC83 18:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
This was at that mobile home park, so wouldn't have to be an F5 to completely destroy one of those, I will have to see if I can find that picture, I saw it on TV.--Holderca1 18:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I just saw that, it was wiped clean to the slab, but being a mobile home, it would take less to do that. I'd say this was an F4. CrazyC83 18:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't the exact photo that I saw, I saw an aerial view earlier. [1] --Holderca1 18:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are some NOAA/NWS resources:

NWS office responsible for Evansville area (NOAA photos, radar/satellite data, and other information will be here
Louisville area NWS office
Central IL NWS office
Northern Indiana, southern Michigan, northwestern Ohio NWS office
Southwestern, southern, and central Missouri NWS office
Indianapolis NWS office
St. Louis area NWS office
Other offices may add pages as well, and the main NOAA homepage will probably have an entry soon possibly with photos.
National severe thunderstorm reports (SPC) -- not all reports make it here

[edit] Article Name

Changing the name of the article should be considered for it to be more descriptive and factually correct.

On the pro-side of the current name, the destruction in Indiana is the most well-known event --that people will search and/or remember. The tornado, however, began in Kentucky (where other damaging tornadoes occurred), and the supercell thunderstorm that produced it was part of a larger outbreak that began in MO/IA and continues (albeit much weaker) as of now in PA/NY. Other articles named for single tornadoes that involve larger outbreaks don't always include the outbreak nomenclature, and this may be the only deadly event; but it's meteorologically misleading, a vast area has been affected by this potent system with at least one tornado destroying at least one house in MO, other possible tornadoes in KY, IN, OH, MO, and IL, widespread lesser damage elsewhere from wind/lightning/etc., and other long-lived, intense tornadic supercells around the time of the most notable tornado (incidentally, that sudden increase in "intensity" of the outbreak was significantly a result of a sudden deepening of the low and increase of vorticity as some interesting jet stream interactions occurred with the extratropical cyclone). So, it's meteorologically misleading and neglects other areas and effects from the same system; and it also is not very descriptive (with all the tornado events throughout history it needs to be more discernable).

Naming it for a community affected "'Community' Tornado" plus "and Outbreak" and perhaps "of..." (region, date, whatever) would be more descriptive and factually comprehensive. I'm open to a range of names but strongly feel it should be more descriptive/correct. Certainly, if it were changed, a redirect is appropriate for a while given the article's current event status. Evolauxia 22:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

If a name change should be done (should there be many more tornadoes or damage reports), I'd call it 2005 Ohio Valley Tornado Outbreak or something along those lines. (The date is necessary as there have been other outbreaks in that area) I haven't heard of too many other tornadoes, although fill me in if you find information on other twisters. CrazyC83 22:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, naming it for a region is a possibility (I wasn't clear), depending on what other reports come in. Whatever location or main name it gets, including the dates is imperative. Evolauxia 23:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I can see, there were only 4 confirmed tornadoes, with just the one deadly one in Indiana. Perhaps Evansville Tornado of 2005? I don't know what the number of tornadoes are required for it to be an outbreak. But lets keep in mind that the Evansville tornado is what makes this notable enough for an article. I don't think if there were no fatalities from any of the four, that we would be sitting here discussing it right now. --Holderca1 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Right now I agree with you. However, we should wait until the storm line passes well off to the east (which will be early tomorrow). We don't know what will happen in the Northeast with this yet. The other three confirmed and two unconfirmed tornadoes definitely are not worthy of articles; that would be like a tropical storm in a rural area with minor damage getting an article with little information available. The Evansville tornado is the main focus of this article (as of now), but the others should remain mentioned since they were in the same system. CrazyC83 00:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course, didn't mean to imply that it should be changed anytime soon. No need to have to change the name several times as it unfolds. The current title is not completely inaccurate (not that I am biased being the one that created it or anything :P). --Holderca1 00:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
The problem isn't an inaccurate title, it's that the title is vague and neglects that it was a major severe weather outbreak. Several events which were first marked as wind events were found to be tornado events after damage surveys; damage surveys are still being conducted. Some of the tornadoes were not insignificant, with long paths, wide widths, and (at least) fairly strong. Most hit rural areas, if some had struck populated areas they'd definitely be very significant. Possible tornadoes in southern and central Illinois, a public reported brief tornado in Ohio, and others have yet to be confirmed; and there may have been more with those long-track, very intense mesocyclones both during the long time they were in discrete supercells and when they were embedded in the line. There is also the matter of the huge area of high end wind reports, numerous causing structural damage, deroofing buildings, overturning trailers, downing trees and powerlines countywide in very many places, and causing injuries in various places. A "serial" derecho was generated by the very dynamic system. The most signifcant derechoes get their own articles, the widespread wind damage and injuries at least deserves mention here. It seems there may be a disconnect between news and meteorology in regard to how we're thinkng about the article, and thus naming. The Evansville tornado will of course be the primary subject of the article, but it's not as if it was an isolated event with nothing else significant. My suggestions for a rename used Evansville tornado/southern Indiana tornado/whatever, it's just that in the interest of precision at least a year is needed, and for comprehensiveness the outbreak nature should be addressed somehow. Evolauxia 03:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
So then you agree with the suggestion I made for the article's title? --Holderca1 14:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Evansville is better than Southern Indiana, it's both more descriptive and (sorta) more correct (tornado began in KY, at least doesn't as strongly imply it only hit Indiana). I would prefer mentioning November 2005 as well. So, Evansville Tornado of November 2005 or some derivative is fine. I'll throw in the non-torandic yet signifcant wind stuff myself (to the article, it's not necessary in the title), as well as more on the meteorological setup, when I have time. Another nocturnal November tornado event is possible tonight, and then more severe weather in the Midwest this weekend, incidentally. Evolauxia 21:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So we learn new things!

Despite being far from the worst tornado outbreak ever (that title goes to the 1974 Super Outbreak), this page sure sets the standard for tornado outbreak pages. I guess we learned a lot from the hurricane pages (primarily from Hurricane Katrina) and applied it over here as well. Who knows where we will use it next, the Blizzard of 2006? Also imagine what kind of page we would have if the Super Outbreak happened today with the extra information available, profiling every one of the 148 tornadoes? CrazyC83 17:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The information used to profile the tornadoes on this page is largely available from then (and most events on the famous tornado list) as well. StormData from NOAA and Significant Tornadoes by Tom Grazulis fairly extensively document all the tornadoes of the event; as well as tornadoes from 1950 to present for Storm Data and significant (>F1 or killer) tornadoes from 1680-1995 for Significant Tornadoes. Some media reports are archived and available. Evolauxia 21:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic Impact

While I don't have a source for this right now. I do know that the estimates currently range from 60 million to 100 million. (Local Sunday newspaper) Its possible it has risen or dropped of course but these were the initial estimates. Falphin 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not to be a dick or anything...

But is this article really encyclopaedic? I mean, does it really need it's own article? Why not just have a page for Tornadoes in 2005, with this being a section on it. Do we need to have articles on every tornado outbreak? I realise this was sever and killed a few people, but in 50 years, will this specific tornado need it's own article? Sorry to bring it up. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... apparantly we already have articles on much weaker tornadoes, so perhaps starting there would have been better than just jumping to this one. Sorry for my mistake. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I suspect there would be too many tornadoes for that. This particular one is notable enought the for it local effect in Evansville and Newburgh and for its death toll. As mentioned above economics were fairly severe as well. Falphin 04:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. That one tornado is what makes the article worthy; the others are just add-ons for brief mention. CrazyC83 06:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annual tornado summary pages

I agree that too many events have articles. In this case, however, I don't object, it is one of the highest fatality modern tornado events.

I strongly support an annual summary article of global tornadic activity to address the smaller events, among other things. It would be a lot of work but much more encyclopedic, and quite worthwhile if actually done. Evolauxia 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windspeed in infobox

All tornado infoboxes should have maximum windspeed removed; it is pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic. Evolauxia 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wind speeds in tornado table

Thanks for making the tornadoes table, it's a great way to quickly present information on the individual tornadoes. The wind speeds should be removed as they are pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic...

It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:
http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm
"The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1
"Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."
"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."
Evolauxia 19:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One statement needs update

"Electricity remains cut for 25,000 customers in the area..." AnonMoos 15:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Fail
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

  • There is as much prose in the lead as in the article itself.
  • Material that is present in the lead section isn't present in the article itself but should.
  • The article isn't broad enough.

Lincher 13:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed parts 1 and 2 by splitting the meteorological details into a separate section, and added more to the article. CrazyC83 18:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Nice addition, great rework, I know there isn't much but everything that is added show how better you guys can make articles. Lincher 22:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Bad news. Refs 4-8, 10, 17, 18, 21 and 22 are either broken links or link to a generic page which no longer lists the information that was (may have been?) there. -Runningonbrains 08:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It originally was there, it needs to be google cached. 74.137.230.39 23:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

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 also be beneficial if the access dates for the references were updated to verify if all of the links still work. 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) 01:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)