Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by David Fuchs via FACBot (talk) 4 July 2024 [1].

Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945

[edit]
Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about...a deadly tornado outbreak in the United States during February 1945. This article reached GA status last year and for over a month, it was posted for a peer review, receiving a no-comment silent consensus. The tornado outbreak included a tornado described by the U.S. government as “the most officially observed one in history”, which eventually led to the Alabama national guard having to intervene. I am excited for this FAC, as this article was my first GA, which I also created last year, and this is my very first FAC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h

[edit]

I'll leave some comments.. 750h+ 03:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Earlier that day, another tornado – also estimated to be F3 intensity – struck Meridian, Mississippi, killing 5–7 people." ==> "Earlier that day, another tornado – also estimated to be F3 intensity – struck Meridian, Mississippi, killing five to seven people." per MOS:NUMBER
Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • $1.7 million (1945 USD) shouldn't be used. Use this template: $1.7 million (${{format price|{{Inflation|US|17000000|1945}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}} dollars{{Inflation-fn|US}})

That's all I got. nice work. 750h+ 03:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @750h+: Just in case there is any other comments you wanted to add. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nope. Support--nice work. 750h+ 02:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sammi Brie

[edit]

Comments: Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "reached within 0.5 miles from the U.S. Weather Bureau's office" should be miles of
Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This brief intense tornado" add a comma after "brief"
Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado destroyed two barns and four other buildings, and injured one person." There is one subject here: "tornado". As a result, "injured one person" isn't a sentence. WP:CINS: remove the comma or change "and injured" to "injuring" to preserve it.
Done - Switched "and injured" to "injuring". Sentence is now: "The tornado destroyed two barns and four other buildings, injuring one person." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge."
    • MOS:GEOCOMMA add after "Alabama"
    • Toward, not towards
    • Complete the appositive by adding a comma after the second use of "Montgomery"
All done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @Sammi Brie: Just in case there is any other comments you wanted to add. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sammi Brie: If you are referring to [Ref 4 as example] something like "(2 December 2022)" for the publishing and/or access date, then that would be Wikipedia's internal doing with the citation assistant ("Cite Web", "Cite Journal", ect...). The Wikipedia citation assistant automatically puts it in DMY. However, typically U.S.-based tornado articles are MDY in prose. Should I quickly manually change to MDY in the citations? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a script to help do this, but I went with another method to do it quickly. Happy to Support the prose here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink

[edit]

WeatherWriter sought out my feedback, so I wanted to transclude those comments.

  • Immediately, I notice that the lead is too short.
  • You say in the lead that Thomas P. Grazulis was a tornado expert, but you don't say his relationship to the information here. When did he assess these F ratings? In addition, the article reads as if it was told by Grazulis, since that's the first thing that I read after the lead. I would expect a section on meteorological synopsis.
There is 0 meteorological synopsis history on the event as far as I am aware (none from the U.S. Weather Bureau, NOAA, or Grazulis). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945." - is that true? The website most certainly wasn't in 1945.
The NWS website cited there, which exists in at least 2023/2024, does state those ratings for tornadoes in 1945. I do not know how else to phrase that, so any guidance on phrasing how the NWS (sometime since the Internet has existed) rated those tornadoes back in 1945 on the Fujita scale would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe title the first section "Background", so it can include the fact that there was a tornado outbreak that day and establish where it was. Some kind of intro. And then the second paragraph could lead with "Until 1971, there was no formal method for assessing tornado intensity, until the Fujita scale was developed in 1971. In 1993 (correct?), Thomas P. Grazulis..." and then discuss how Grazulis talked about the outbreak. The article seems notable enough to have an article, but it needs to do a stronger job with putting everything into context, and that's the difference between a featured article and a good article. Let me know if you need help here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you maybe clarify what you mean? Do you mean add a new "Background" section right under the "Confirmed tornadoes" heading/section (i.e. putting that paragraph under a ===Background=== heading) or do you mean splitting the lead up? If you mean the former, than that could be done. If you mean the latter, than I would disagree with that, as the lead was built up specifically as part of the GA, and splitting it up seems pointless as it just shrinks it to basically nothing.
Also, I added right after the Wikilink to Fujita scale under the "Confirmed tornadoes" section that it was created in 1971. That probably should suffice that, since it is Wikilinked and the background of the Fujita scale doesn't need to be in a single article about a tornado outbreak. Either way, could you clarify what you mean by adding a "Background" section and where? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went ahead and reverted the date changes I made. Honestly, adding dates to that section just make the prose weird.
Current prose supported by others:
All ratings on the Fujita scale were made by Thomas P. Grazulis and are classified as unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950.
The one I added then reverted with dates:
All ratings on the Fujita scale, created in 1971 by Dr. Ted Fujita, were made by Thomas P. Grazulis in 1993 and are classified as unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950.
Honestly, I do not think the dates Grazulis rated the tornadoes nor the dates of Fujita scale creation are necessary, since Grazulis’s book is sourced (with the 1993 date in the citation) and the Fujita scale is a Wikilink to the article and background on the Fujita scale. I don’t think any changes to that prose or a background for the Fujita scale/timeline of rating is needed, due to how the prose currently is:
All ratings on the Fujita scale were made by Thomas P. Grazulis and are classified as unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950. Grazulis only documented tornadoes he considered to be significant (F2+), so the true number of tornadoes for this outbreak is most likely higher. That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945. In this list, NWS Birmingham assigned ratings from the Fujita scale to the tornadoes, lending official support to the ratings for these tornadoes.
The Wikilink to the Fujita scale has that background as well as that only NWS can rate tornadoes. So, it seems all the issues are covered by either the citations or the Fujita scale article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that wikilinking helps, but I still feel like the article needs more context, like who Grazulis was, and when his assessments were. Even something like "Before 1971, there was no formal method for identifying tornadic intensity in the United States, when Dr. Ted Fujita developed the Fujita scale. In 1993, Thomas P. Grazulis released [X book], in which he assessed the outbreak of February 12, 1945." Further expanding on this point, did the fact that the US was in World War 2 have anything to do with information maybe not being as widespread? Also, there's nothing like "On February 12, a cold front moved through the southeastern United States," something like that to explain what even caused the tornadoes. The Monthly Weather Review for February 1945 identifies a low pressure area that developed near southeastern Texas on February 12, which moved northeastward into Kentucky by the 13th, and continued northeastward. Now, I don't know for sure it was a cold front, or a trough, but that timing lines up perfectly. Hopefully that's a good place to start to find more information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a sub-section for February 12 event, when all of the events were on the same day?
Standard process for tornado articles. We do that in modern-day events as well (Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024 is an example). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was a multi-day outbreak. What about any other single day outbreaks? And for that matter, were there other tornadoes on February 11 or 13th as part of the same system? Have you checked newspapers for that? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again asking the above question. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Standard WikiProject Weather process. I am not willing to change that without some level of a WikiProject wide discussion as the process for “Month Day event” sections for the tornado charts is used on every tornado article. May 2022 Midwest derecho is a single-day outbreak in recent time showing it as well. But due to standard process, I will not make this change without some larger discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is formatted like a list, but it's abstract in how it talks about some of the lesser significant events. Like, you say "The tornado started", "This brief intense tornado struck a cluster", and "The tornado destroyed". I'm being nitpicky here, but you came to me for my advice, and one of my main rules for writing is avoid using the passive voice. You used phrases like "A home was leveled", by what? If you want some variation to saying tornado, you could always say "twister". But you should least say something like "The tornado" did something
I will take a look at the article and see how to remove some of that passive voice. You are right though, I did use a lot of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still a lot of passive voice. It's not a huge issue, but it's something that's still there from my original assessment. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others." - did the tornado kill 40 or 11?
They said 40 in a formal publication, then months later, said 11. That phrase is because the original official publication said that. Same idea as when NHC said Ian was Cat 4, then months later, Cat 5. The difference in this case though, is that the "40" was not preliminary, but the actual official release, which was later formally changed months later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you know that the "40" was incorrect, then you don't need to include it. If you want to, you could say "initial reports of upward of 40 deaths", but even that is wish-washy. With the benefit of hindsight, Wikipedia articles should do their best to identify what happened, when it happened. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, why would that be different than what is currently stated? "This is one of three tornadoes marked by Grazulis that the United States Weather Bureau originally marked as a single tornado. The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others. Modern research by Thomas P. Grazulis as well as later publications from the U.S. Weather Bureau indicate that there were actually three separate tornadoes." Basically, officially, the tornado killed 40 people. This was later, officially, reduced to the respective death tolls. The USWB officially published that a single tornado occurred, then later, officially reduced it and split it into three tornadoes, instead of a single one. Those sentences seem to cover (1) the what happened and (2) when it happened, since the what happened was officially a single tornado, followed by a split into three tornadoes and the when shows the differences in sources/dates of sources saying "Modern research...as well as later publications..." It can be removed if needed, but I think the sentences seem to work as is, since it does clearly indicate the 40 was a mistake, albeit, a formal and official "mistake". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is by highlighting "The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado..." and also contrasting what Grazulis said versus the Weather Bureau. Again, this is why I think it would be helpful having some sort of section at the beginning - "Before 1971, there was no formal means of assessing tornadoes", or something. Just to highlight that the time period is very different than nowadays, and putting into context how it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally disagree that a new section/paragraph is needed to specify dates since the history and background is wikilinked and sourced. If someone else agreed that a brand new section/paragraph explaining the history is needed, then I would, but I am going to personally say it is not needed at this time. More like an “agree to disagree” moment I guess. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be a source at the bottom of the table for all of the events. Otherwise, where is the source for all of the tornado widths, F ratings, all that.
Just a question, do the sources for the summaries not count as that as the sources citing the tornado summaries are the sources for widths/deaths, ect...? I can certainly do that if you think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure if that would be considered overlinking to others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources would count if you identified the width and length. Also, I notice you include time of formation, but not the duration of tornado. Any reason? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Standard process (WikiProject Weather process) for tornado articles. Only the start-time is mentioned. See any recent outbreak articles for comparison. Durations for individual tornadoes, if known, are only included in split-sections (in this case, only the duration for the Montgomery tornado would be included). However, no durations are mentioned by any sources (USWB or Grazulis or otherwise) that I am aware of. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure about the number of railroad cars derailed? I came across this source after a quick Google search.
Wow, you just found a source discrepancy! Grazulis was the source for the number of train cars derailed, but that newspaper article says differently. I will add that information to the article tomorrow and note the difference in sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of sources, are you sure you've gotten as many sources as possible, and used as much useful information? As I noted earlier, there wasn't a meteorological synopsis.
See note earlier about that.
  • "5 miles (8.0 km) " - why do you have 8.0? Your other usage of km doesn't have the .0
I actually have no idea and I have no idea how to fix that. It straight up is "{{convert|5|mi|km}}. Template being weird? Honestly, not sure. If you know how to fix that, please let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could always rewrite avoiding using the template. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The number would still need to be said and in a convert template. In CEs, it is almost always standard to move un-templated numbers into convert templates, so moving it out of the template wouldn’t really fix anything. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: {{convert|5|mi|km|0}}produces 5 miles (8 km) (the "0" forces rounding to the nearest whole number). Help:Convert#Rounding has more details if you need more adjustments. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 16:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! I just made the change! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge." - that's three references to the cardinal direction. Maybe split it up a bit and add the time of day here? Also, the material you have in the second paragraph seems more appropriate for the first paragraph, like the length of the tornado path, and width.
Paragraph split was done by a GA reviewer last year when the article was up for GA. I would probably want someone else to mention the paragraph splitting before changing it, only due to the fact it was split to get to GA status. The cardinal direction thing though seems odd now that I think about it. Also there isn't a time of day listed. One thing I can say is this is a tornado from 1945 and the information about it is no where close to what NWS or NHC would produce in 2024 for tornadoes/tropical depressions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tornado leveled two government or U.S. army warehouses." - that seems a bit odd to be the second thing you mention in the section. I would think the first paragraph would be a summary, before getting into the impacts.
GA-reviewer split for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - who said this? You have a random quote in there without attributing it.
There is a citation immediately following the quote. I can add who stated the quote though (Associated Press with no direct author name), however, I am unsure the best way to state it. Maybe this?
"A freight train was also struck, where, according to the Dothan Eagle and Associated Press, 50 cars "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes".[3]"
Any thoughts about the wording for it before I add it to the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At that point, is the 50 cars part worth being included in the quote, or not? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and assume no, since it passed a source spot check for the GA process (which fixed a couple of quotes) and two others above supported the prose as is. I'm thinking it doesn't need to be, but I could be wrong on that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should say something like "Newspapers described the scene as..." or something. You need to identify the source of the quote. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all of the fatalities in Montgomery, you don't really go into much detail about any of them. Were they all in people's houses?
The info about the fatalities was in this part: After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius. That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.
  • You describe the tornado as "devastating" twice in the lead, but don't provide much context. Are tornadoes are in Alabama? Had Montgomery ever been hit by a tornado? Was this event the deadliest in its history?
  • I see a lot here that could be potentially useful. Rich Thomas, the author, is also cited below, and in this random source
  • This site says Montgomery County tornado deaths are rare, and that this event was indeed Montgomery County's deadliest, as well as other deadly events since then.
Added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: some information has been added based on your comments! I really thank you so much for the comments and I know you were being nit-picky on purpose. FAC's involve the nit-picky details. Hopefully I was able to explain some of them and I also left a few questions. Since your comment was more in a bullet-list format, I hope you don't mind that I replied individually to them under the bullet point. I really do thank you for the comments. One other thing: Would you care if I leave a transclude-link to this talk page discussion over on the FAC page? Before your reply, someone else had already commented on the FAC page, so trancluding this discussion over there would probably be useful. But, I wanted to ask before just doing it. Again, thank you for the comments and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to FA-status. (fingers crossed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, the comments have been transcluded. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ♫ Hurricanehink, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I forgot about this one, sorry about that! So I replied a few times. My big concern is still whether the article has enough. The article says it was "the most officially observed one in history", but it only has 12 references. I just feel like the article is lacking, namely in not having meteorological details in the setup. I admit, it's tricky, because of the time period and the (seeming) lack of sources, and it doesn't help that there aren't many old tornado FA's to draw comparison to. That being said, I still think it needs a bit of work, although I won't formally oppose since the article is in pretty good shape. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a small note, the “most officially observed one in history”, as explained even in the article, wasn’t “most observed one by the public”, but rather by meteorological/government/military equipment, which received a full paragraph explanation in the Montgomery tornado’s section. Meteorology was still in its infancy at the time of the tornado. Heck, the first actual forecast for a tornado didn’t occur for three more years. So the quote is more for scientific reasons, which I think, is explained well enough given the sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I still can't support at the moment for a variety of reasons. The article is only 1,500 words, and since it's on the short side, I'm going to question whether it's comprehensive enough. The article is only one section - "Confirmed tornadoes". I have said in the past that I expect a meteorological synopsis for the mechanism of the outbreak. Also, an aftermath section is often in significant outbreaks, but doesn't exist here. I asked before when did Grazulis assess the Fujita ratings, but I never got an answer for that. I also mentioned the MWR identifying a low pressure area from Texas to Kentucky in February 1945, which the timing lines up perfectly. I don't know if you've emailed any Alabama National Weather service offices, but that could help. There's still a lot of passive voice. I also disagree with mentioning the NWS saying the one tornado killed 40, since, as you've said, it wasn't the case that the tornado killed 40. You still have the unattributed quote in the article. You are also refusing to change the wording that I brought up as an example of bad wording (the sentence mentioning the three cardinal directions). And regarding sourcing, I still think there should be a source at the end of the table for all of the widths, lengths, and times. I appreciate the work you did, WeatherWriter (talk · contribs), but I don't think this article should be featured. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to really debate/work to fix this since it seems clear this FAC will not succeed anyway (given your neutral switched to an oppose). But, I still want to work to hash out the quote thing. You stated it is “unattributed”. Could you explain how it is not attributed? I apologize if this seems to be being repeated over and over, but now three editors don’t have an issue with it, and the source was even verified correctly below. So I am honestly like confused/partially flabbergasted that you still say the “perhaps the most officially observed one in history” is unattributed. You seem to be the only person saying that, so I am just trying to understand why you say it isn’t attributed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant - "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - which right now doesn't have attribution. As I said earlier, you could say "newspapers described the scene as..." if you wanted to keep that exact quote. So long as you say where it came from. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that. I just added some attribution then. I personally don’t think it was needed since there was a citation right after the ending quote, but I guess that solves that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My remaining points remain. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

[edit]
File:Map of the tornado outbreak on February 12, 1945 by the US Weather Bureau.jpg should probably link to the source. That said, both images seem to be from the American Meteorological Society - the PD-NOAA tag only applies to works made by government employees as part of their duties. Nothing about the source says that it took files from NOAA.

What makes richthomasweathernetwork.com and http://www.tornadoproject.com a reliable source? Spot-check wise, #3 says "perhaps the most officially" not "the most officially". I also don't see the 26 figure there, or the notion that it was three tornadoes? I am also not sure I get the rain shaft after dissipation from the source. Grazulis only documented tornadoes he considered to be significant is also not in the source it is followed by. I didn't check all the claims but there are a few too many discrepancies on these checked for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter: You there? — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not seeing this earlier. Here are some answers to Jo-Jo Eumerus’s questions:
  • Both files were deemed public domain in the GA review as that specific AMS publication is listed on the NOAA Library, indicating it was done as part of his official duties and is fully in the public domain as a U.S. government document. Also, link was added to that files source on the Commons.
  • Tornado Project is a reliable source as deemed in the GA review. You can refer to my larger response to that on Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945#GA Review Answers. Short answer, led by Thomas P. Grazulis, a well-known and cited tornado expert and Tornado Project is cited by the National Weather Service even. Grazulis has at least a couple hundred to maybe a thousand Wikipedia citations as well.
  • Rich Thomas is a meteorologist, even suggested by another FAC reviewer (Hurricanehink). I won’t remove source as it was even suggested to be added mid-FAC.
  • Quote still remains the same. I do not see the relevance of including “perhaps”. If others agree it should be included, then I can include it. Since this is the first comment regarding that, I will not make the change unless others agree it needs to be added. Two other editors have supported the prose as is for FA, plus it passed GA review as is, I think that is a reasonable thought.
  • Idea of three tornadoes is derived. No source directly states “three”, however, the first publication of USWB stated the same “tornado” (not plural) location was “Meridian, Miss., south to York, Livingston and Montgomery, Ala.” Older USWB reports are riddled with errors, a lot either corrected over the years in later NOAA publications or by academics (like Grazulis). Obviously the map (from USWB later) as well as Grazulis shows it was different tornadoes (plural), since that “tornado” distance would (based on original research) technically is 157 miles (per Google maps…lol). USWB did officially publish those three towns hit by a single “tornado” though, and then later changed it to “tornadoes”.
  • “No thunder or precipitation accompanied the immediate passage of the tornado, but as it receded on the horizon toward the northeast, a rain shower could be seen falling over a small area to its right and rear so that the right side of the funnel was obscured. Lifting of the core began soon after precipitation began falling from the storm cloud.” That, to me, is a clear indication that rain started as the tornado dissipated. I do not see a need to make any changes unless someone else does not see that phrase meaning what is written.
  • Grazulis’ book is a well-known thing. The title alone also is “Significant Tornadoes”. It is explained in the first few pages of the book. As such, I have added the Grazulis reference at the end of that part in the article. If that is not enough, then know that every National Weather Service modern-era tornado documentation page includes that “Significant” starts with F2/EF2 tornadoes. Tornado intensity#Typical damage also has the chart for that terminology. “Significant” started at F2+ is a well-documented topic, so a source for that can be pulled if needed.
Courtesy pinging @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just in case there is any other comments you wanted to add. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the source review Jo-Jo. This one also needs a source to text fidelity check and a plagiarism check. Do you fancy doing the honours? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK:
    • 1: Don't have access to this source.
    • 2: Is there a formula?
    • 3: The "most officially" is still not there, and neither 0.3 inches. Where is Emigh mentioned? I am not sure that this source says that there was no precipitation linked to the tornado.
    • 4: It says "about 300" and "The Montgomery storm destroyed around 100 houses, as well as two warehouses and a freight train." isn't in the source.
    • 5: Where does it say "Two more deaths and a total of 50 injuries" or Salvation Army? The paragraph about the governor is verbatim from the source.
    • 6: OK
    • 7: I don't see the Jones-Vimville figures.
    • 8: This one is showing a combined MS+AL casualty count but only the AL injury count. Also, if it was three tornadoes, which one is in which state/county?
    • 9: 35 homes, not 30.
    • 10: OK
    • 11: OK
    • 12: Don't have access to this source.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some responses for the source reviews by Jo-Jo Eumerus.
  1. I have a physical copy of the book and other members of WikiProject Weather do as well, so information sourced by it can be verified/rechecked if needed by someone else with the book.
  2. Source is auto-added with the inflation template.
  3. The source literal first sentence is “A tornado, perhaps the most officially observed one in history, passed one half mile northwest of the Montgomery Weather Bureau Office at 4:22 P.M., Central Standard Time, on February 12, 1945.” I am actually unsure you checked the right source for #3, given it is the first sentence. Other info regarding precipitation is explained earlier. I personally see your concerns on that already addressed above, so I do not see any further action needed for the concerns regarding this source.
  4. Montgomery tornado injuries sourced by Grazulis book (for exact number of 293), so “about 300” is ignored. For the second sentence, that is in the lead and the citation is for the following sentence regarding deadliest tornado in Montgomery history. As that sentence is in the lead, citations are not needed for information already stated elsewhere in the article, i.e. how many buildings destroyed.
  5. “Salvation Army” removed from Wikipedia article now. Rest of info cited by the source seems ok to me.
  6. N/A
  7. Citation removed from the Jones-Vimville tornado.
  8. I think it is explained ok, as each of the three tornadoes have the same info from this source: “The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others”. That sentence appears three times in the article, with all three tornadoes. The towns exact towns listed by USWB for the “long-track tornado” can be listed with that sentence if needed.
  9. Fixed!
  10. N/A
  11. N/A
  12. I have access to the source. Very small section of a newspaper (two paragraphs) regarding E. D. Emigh viewing the tornado. It came out hours after the tornado and it written more as your stereotypical breaking-news “Live Updates” news page you would see now. “First reports from the devastated section to Montgomery indicated several persons had been killed” is in the first paragraph. Second paragraph is related to Mr. Emigh.
Hopefully this quelled any questions on the source spot check. I do appreciate it, as a few things were able to be fixed and corrected based on a true source spot-check! If there are any further concerns, please let me know! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pinging @Jo-Jo Eumerus. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 11:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am bit iffy on using "A tornado, perhaps the most officially observed one in history," to source "the most officially observed one in history" without a "perhaps". That conveys more certainty than the source. I think it gets very confusing if some parts of the lead sentences rely on WP:LEADCITE and others on the cites. Someone will have to recheck #1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I have (reluctantly and in disagreement) added "perhaps" to the quote as it appears in the article. I have also added additional citations to the lead and in my edit summary, I noted that per the FAC, WP:LEADCITE should be ignored for this specific article. Hopefully those changes will be enough to allow you to support the FAC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then it's only waiting for a recheck on #1. FWIW, I do not generally register a formal support or oppose when reviewing a FAC, since I only review one aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source one rechecked. All material cited along with the citation matches up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

This nom is now eight weeks old and doesn't have a strong consensus to promote. Unless there's additional movement in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, what is considered a “strong consensus”? No editor has verbally opposed the promotion of the article. One editor stated they do not do supports or opposes, one editor stated neutral, and two editors gave verbal supports. This is my first ever FAC, so I am just trying to figure out why this currently wouldn’t be considered a consensus to support, given the lack of opposes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: Speaking from experience with having had numerous FACs, the reviews must demonstrate that the article meets the criteria. The two supports are essentially drive by reviews which are much weaker than thorough reviews. Noah, BSBATalk 02:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The big think I see though that still remains was the fact that it only has 12 sources. The only other main issue brought up by Hurricanehink (courtesy pinging as I think about this anyway) was the quote regarding "most officially observed". That issue was solved above with Jo Jo in the Image and source review section. I do understand the idea you pointed out that the full review plays more into it than the two brief supports. However, the only issue that I can tell in here was the fact it only has 12 sources. That seems to be it. That is more of my reasoning/question on why there isn't a consensus. A single neutral-based (non-opposition) reasoning + 2 weak supports is what I see. No one has directly opposed it, the sources were reviewed and checked. Like I said, this is my first FAC, so my main ideology of a consensus comes from AfDs, RMs, RFCs, ect... It just seemed odd to me that the single neutral-based reasoning/issue that still is in play is enough to prevent what was considered a "strong consensus".
Either way, with that being said, I did a courtesy ping for Hurricanehink, since I was already thinking about pinging them if they wanted to reconsider their neutral stance. When the neutral stance was made, the 12 sources had not yet been reviewed and the "most observed" quote was still being discussed. Right now, the sources have indeed been reviewed/verified and the "most observed" quote was discussed and altered per the discussion with Jo Jo above this. So, would you consider possibly supporting this for FAC Hurricanehink, or is the 12-sources only issue still enough for you to remain neutral? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well nevermind on what I said earlier. Hurricanehink just switched to an oppose. Now there is no clear consensus and this FAC is pretty much doomed. Damn. First FAC and it is a failure…pretty much due to a damn stupid quote which has been hashed out a ton over the FAC. Since this still technically has a majority support (2-1), I will not formally withdraw the FAC, however I get that it will not pass. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tornado_outbreak_of_February_12,_1945/archive1&oldid=1232669702"