Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greensburg tornado/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) 8 April 2025 [1].

Greensburg tornado

[edit]
Nominator(s): EF5 23:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2007 tornado that practically obliterated the town of Greensburg, Kansas, killing twelve people. The tornado is one of the most famous in the weather community, notably due to it being the first EF5 (hey, that's me!) tornado to ever touch down. 95% of Greensburg was destroyed and became a focal point of a huge cleanup and rebuilding operation that captured the minds of eco-tourists. I've poured a lot of work into this article; we're at the third FAC and my hope is that this could become currently the only article on an individual tornado rated FA (the previous only one was merged in December). This is currently the article I have edited the most (450+) and would love to see it as May 4, 2027's TFA. I've resolved the comments from previous FAC's and feel like there isn't anything else that can be added. :) EF5 23:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Departure–

[edit]

I'll be taking another look at this. I looked at it the first time it was at FAC and even though I supported that it's looking a hell of a lot better now. Also, I have an open GAN at 2024 Greenfield tornado - it failed the FAC due to low support but it could easily pass GA in my opinion. Anyway... Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tornado greatly affected the economy and population of Kiowa County as a whole; Even though (I hate to say it) Greensburg is the only city of note in Kiowa County, I don't see any information about it affecting areas outside of Greensburg i.e. Haviland and Mullinville. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It still affected the economy of Kiowa County, though. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it did but impacts seem more or less limited to Greensburg and areas directly in the path of the tornadoes, and unless economic reports of i.e. Haviland and Mullinville can be found I don't know if the sentence is due. Departure– (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's due. Economic impact spreads far beyond physical impact. — EF5 16:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. Kiowa County's economy was obviously affected, but I don't see how it was outside of Greensburg. Departure– (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, fine. Removed, just like the Diaz anchor bolts. — EF5 17:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the ingredients were present in the atmosphere for the developing of supercell thunderstorms producing damaging wind, large hail and tornadoes. "developing of" is a bit oddly worded, "supercell thunderstorms" could probably be explained better. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of these intense tornadic supercells eventually produced 20 to 22 tornadoes, including the Greensburg tornado. This is the only real introduction of the Greensburg supercell and I think a bit more history is due, if it can be found. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Weather Service was praised for its advanced warning that was sent out up to 39 minutes before the tornado actually hit Greensburg, Looking through the source, I don't see anything about "praise", only a matter of fact variant of "warning was issued 39 minutes before the tornado hit Greensburg". Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • the National Weather Service office in Dodge City issued a tornado emergency for Greensburg, which noted that "A VIOLENT TORNADO WAS ON A DIRECT... "which noted that" is an odd phrase to use here. What was the source of the information? Spotters, EMA, radar? This should be rephrased along the lines of "as radar indicated that "A VIOLENT TORNADO ...". Also, while there isn't a specific section of MOS for it, it's worth noting that prior to somewhat recently all bulletins used caps only and as such I think that the quotation should be brought down to sentence case, even if caps is what's used in the original text. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is taken directly from the TOR-E, only time I've ever heard "violent" in a tornado warning. I've lowercased. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you wanted me to do. Done. — EF5 14:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A damage survey conducted by Timothy P. Marshall, Joshua Wurman and several other experts Add a comma after Wurman and "several other experts". Also, who are these experts? If possible, note their relationship to the survey. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Weather Service rated the worst of the damage caused by the tornado EF5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale(EF scale), A space should be added before the parentheses. Also, as this was the first EF5 on the scale, introducing the EF scale is due. 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • These anticyclonic tornadoes were confirmed by the RaXPol instrument used by the University of Massachusetts. Introduce RaxPol - what was it doing watching the Greensburg tornado? Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Greensburg High School, located around one block east of the tornado's inflow, The source quoted doesn't directly mention "inflow", which to my knowledge is not 1-to-1 synonymous with "tornadic winds". Plus, if it was one block away, why did it suffer any damage at all? Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. It was originally "convergence line" (per source) but a Google search found no other usage of the term. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kiowa County Memorial Hospital was reinforced with internal vertical steel beams which extended along the floors and ceilings, along with double-thick masonry walls. Despite this, the hospital sustained heavy damage, and a 9,900 pounds (4,500 kg) steel beam was lifted from the hospital's frame and lofted into a vehicle to the hospital's northeast. Some inline citations, specifically about the construction quality of the hospital, would be helpful. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're located at the end-of-paragraph, that one citation verifies the entire paragraph. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It already is, in the lead. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, not sure how I missed that. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • A study carried out by the University of Kansas Health System in April 2013 concluded that the critical mortality rate from the tornado was 18% and that age was related to the degree of injuries sustained from the tornado Introduce "critical mortality rate". Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. EF5 16:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think this article is just shy of the comprehensiveness of a prospective feature article, but it could easily rise to that level with a bit of effort. All of these objections are actionable within time. Great work! Departure– (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Departure–, would you like me to review the Greenfield GAN? I'll stay on-topic but I'm glad to do it. — EF5 16:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would appreciate that. I just don't want it to be an "instant" thing - if you find anything unsourced or poorly written hold me accountable for it. That's why I did this review instead of just flat-out asking you to review it. Departure– (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Departure–, I believe I've addressed everything I could. I really can't find much more on the supercells themselves. — EF5 14:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm almost ready to support; I'm just going to ask for a bit more prose about the RAXPOL unit's observation of the storm - it's introduced as a source out of the blue, and to a reader outside weatherspace, it isn't immediately apparent what it is or how it got that data - whether it got it during or after the storm, etc etc. Departure– (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Departure–: I've made a whole section on it. Does it look better now? — EF5 16:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's better, but I think it should either be moved up or less specific or something - perhaps rephrased as "A University of Massachusetts team observing the storm using a mobile radar system detected 10 satellites". Also, one more nitpick about the lede - if the tornado is "known as the Greensburg EF5", why isn't that the title? Why isn't that in the bold in the lede? Shouldn't a bold "Greensburg tornado" etc be present there too? Departure– (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the "Greensburg EF5" before you posted the comment. Not sure what you mean by "less specific", wouldn't that entail comprehensiveness issues? — EF5 17:00, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See the rewording I brought up - perhaps not less specific, but specifically better focused. Concepts get introduced at a natural pace, instead of randomly bringing up concepts without elaborating further until later on in the prose. Departure– (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Departure–, done. — EF5 17:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From there, I don't see any significant issues, it's comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced to my liking. Support. Departure– (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does the 2-week hiatus rule still apply to nominations archived due to inactivity? I think the “stall” rule is stupid, but I’m aware that’s a minority viewpoint. EF5 18:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this standpoint. Getting archived due to a lack of reviews is quite annoying when it's clear to everyone so far that the article is ready to go ahead with a featured listing. Departure– (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d bring it up at WT:FAC but I’m fully aware that it’d get speedy closed or wouldn’t get anywhere. @Gog the Mild: for the hiatus answer. :) EF5 15:07, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: I think in this case your best bet is to go and review some other featured articles as a sort of quid-pro-quo similar to DYK. QPQ isn't a real part of featured articles like it is elsewhere but from here is probably the easiest way to get another review, minus sockpuppetry or do-overs of course. Departure– (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what if anything it may be worth, my boilerplate on finding reviewers is:

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I think I'll just let this one time out and retry your suggestion of asking reviewers next time I nominate; tornado-related FACs have historically had low reviewer counts for some reason and there's no way I can get a review in the next ~day. — EF5 14:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to have stalled, and so I am timing it out and archiving it. For whatever it may be worth, I paste below my boilerplate advice on attracting reviewers. The usual two-week hiatus applies.

    Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

    Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

    Gog the Mild (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2025 (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/Greensburg_tornado/archive1&oldid=1284665278"