Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024/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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 March 2024 [1].

Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024

[edit]
Nominator(s): ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a tornado outbreak that occurred not too long ago, on March 13-15 of this year. I think it should be featured (or at least attempt to be featured) because of the immense amount of detail put into every paragraph, the proper use of images (although not many, they are quality), and how quick the article came together. It was a draft yesterday, and today there's now about an hour-long read. I don't think I've honestly ever seen so many Wikipedians come together in one day and form an article this quickly. ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius

[edit]

Looking at this quickly, this page seems quite far from FAC status. There are a bunch of issues:

  • Several of the paragraphs are unsourced.
  • There is a citation needed tag in the "Confirmed tornadoes" table as well.
  • The "Confirmed tornadoes" section seems very disorganized. For example, the first three subsections are about specific dates, but the last two subsections are about two specific tornadoes. For some reason, only the two strongest tornadoes are given subsections here, but both sections have several paragraphs. For the other tornadoes, they're only mentioned in the table. Is there a reason why this is the case?
  • Many of the sources seem to be WP:PRIMARY sources from the National Weather Service. For this to even be a good article, you would need a lot more secondary sourcing, such as newspapers and magazine articles, and/or reports published after the fact.
  • There seems to be missing information about the tornado outbreak's impact and aftermath. For example, in which ways did the outbreak damage local infrastructure, affect the community, etc. There is a "Non-tornadic effects" section, but that just talks about hail and rain.
  • Finally, and I just realized this now, this article is about a tornado outbreak that took place less than a week ago, so it's not likely to be stable at all. This is one of the main criteria outlined in WP:FACR.

Sorry, but I have to oppose this FAC. I really strongly suggest withdrawing the nomination and first sending this article through the peer review process. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I noticed that this FAC was never transcluded properly on the WP:FAC page. Pinging the @FAC coordinators: . – Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, sorry, I posted the FaC and read about the passage of time section, I honestly don't think it should be a featured article. I don't know if there's a way to delete the FaC request? Thanks :) ( ͡°( ͡° ͜ʖ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)ʖ ͡°)͡°) (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Hopefully the @FAC coordinators: don't mind another ping. Epicgenius (talk) 15:03, 19 March 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_March_13–15,_2024/archive1&oldid=1217122355"