Talk:1948 Tinker Air Force Base tornadoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 1948 Tinker Air Force Base tornadoes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 4, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 19, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Tinker Air Force Base was hit by two tornadoes in six days in 1948, the second of which (damage pictured) was heralded by the first tornado forecast in history?


Who are "Fawbush and Miller"? Mentioned in the last paragraph, they are presumably the "base meteorologists", but there's no reference of their profession earlier in the piece. Could the original author please clear this up? --Millrick (talk) 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Significance of the event[edit]

Since the accuracy in forecasting the later tornado ended up playing a crucial role in the history of tornado forecasting, I've bumped this up from low importance to mid importance. In my opinion, the event is borderline high-importance, but I wanted to get input from other people as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1948 Tinker Air Force Base tornadoes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright! I'll be reviewing this over the next couple days, performing minor copyedits and tweaks as I go along. When I'm done, I'll get back to you with my review. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Just out of curiosity, it has been almost a month since any activity in the review, so what is the state of it? Thanks and happy editing :) TheSpecialUser TSU 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It's called I forgot to add it to my list of things to do. o_0 Sorry about that—I'll get to it today! Next time, feel free to drop a notification on my talk page after around one week, because I mentioned several days. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright! Here's my review! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead section
  • You give the time for the first tornado in the body, but the time field in the infobox is empty. It should probably be added here.
    • I feel it would be a bit confusing to have a time in the infobox, since the article is about two different tornadoes which struck on different days at different times.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
March 20 tornado
  • Great work!
Investigation and tornado forecast
  • Nothing seems amiss here.
March 25th tornado
  • Is there a time for this tornado available in reliable sources that you could add both here and in the infobox?
    •  Done, though see my other comment about the infobox. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The term "was a rousing success" just seems to be a slight NPOV issue. Is there another wording you could think of?
See also
  • You could possibly add {{clear}} to prevent the wrapping of the == References == line.
  • The accessdate for reference #5 is inconsistent with the others.
  • All references look great apart from the minor formatting inconsistency!
External links
  • I'm not certain what purpose this link serves. Furthermore, I cannot see the reason for appending The Tornado to the link. Could you explain?
  • This is a very excellently done article, and I will have no problems passing it. Great work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry I took so long to respond, I have been a bit lax on my Wikiing recently. Let me know if you have any more concerns! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
It's no problem! I forgot to start the review for a month too....
I've checked over the changes and they all seem good, so I'm going to pass this article now. I made a minor change to the template to hide the "time" parameter when not supplied. Thanks for your work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)