![]() | 1997 Jarrell tornado was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 17, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know that it was taken by Scott Beckwith, who allowed the NWS to use his images of the tornado and damage. Would this mean that the "Dead Man Walking" photo is PD? MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I am going to be guiding MemeGod27 through the process of creating a solid article. For ease of discussion, I am using the good article criteria layout, however this is not a formal GAN or anything like that. Just making that note for future editors. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
National Weather Service" ---> URL (just copy/paste it). That is the only change that needs to happen. The "Author" section can stay "
NWS", but the website URL needs to be on there instead of just "National Weather Service". The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The 1997 Jarrell F5, as it was at peak strength", however the source for does not state the photograph was taken at peak intensity. As such either (1) a source saying the photograph is the tornado at peak intensity needs to be added in the caption or (2) the caption needs to be rewritten to remove the original research ( WP:OR).
The tornado as it was forming" & "
The tornado as it was roping out outside of Jarrell". The source with the images does not directly state the tornado was forming/roping out, so a source needs to be added or the caption needs to be rewritten.
MemeGod27: We can add notes about each point (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for what each point states) and add comments under it similar to a talk page discussion. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
In the section "Tracking into Jarrell", the 5th sentence is cutoff: "The tornado tore off asphalt as it crossed County Roads 308, 305, and 307; the thickness of the asphalt pavement was roughly.". Hopefully someone knows the thickness and can complete the sentence. Jamezkoe ( talk) 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be entirely composed of sentences taken directly from previous parts of the articles, word for word. This whole article needs a clean up Jamezkoe ( talk) 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado → 1997 Jarrell tornado – Tornado did not actually directly hit Prairie Dell, and is not needed in the title. Prairie Dell isn't mentioned in most sources for the tornado, and the only reason that it's even in the article was because of the ArcGIS Damage Viewer and Tornado Archive. MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Headbomb (alt):, you rececently removed part of the page + a source under the rational of "self promotion / self published". The author, Marlene Bradford, is a PhD'ed meteorologist from Texas A&M University with a doctorial on tornado forecasting. I think this qualifies as a subject-expert. Btw, the author is academically published in the field of meteorology as well ( [1]), with a publication in the American Meteorological Society. Could you explain further on your rational for removing it and/or could you re-add the information? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Since there is an active copyright discussion on the "Dead Man Walking" photo, we need a new image for the infobox. Any thoughts? While the tornado was a wedge in its' F5 phase, it also had extremely high windspeeds even as a rope. Honestly anything would represent it. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This is more of a continuation of the previous message, but I found about 30 other photos relating to the tornado that could fit in the info box:
- 1. This one of the tornado at F4+ intensity
-2. The tornado as it was strengthening
-3. The tornado at peak intensity
For other images, see Category:1997 Jarrell tornado on commons.
WxTrinity ( talk to me!) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There is only a single semi-reliable source for 300mph wind speeds, and despite four different citations, neither are truly reliable here. Mississippi-based meteorologist Eric Graves, on a Facebook post, stated "Winds were estimated to be over 300 mph at times", which was followed up by the mysanantonio article. Beyond this is the Plainview Herald article, which states the tornado had "winds up to 318 mph", and the SF Gate article, which I believe is the true original article, which stated victims had "their skin burned by the deadly friction of 300 mph winds." All 4 of these sources appear to be based on the Fujita scale's F5 rating, which ranged from 261-318mph, which was likely picked up by the media who sensationalized the articles by using the high ends of that as those of the tornado itself (the tornado was never confirmed to have winds over 300 miles per hour). I believe claim was fabricated by SF Gate and Plainview Herald independently, then passed onto Eric Graves, who passed it onto mysanantonio. Jarrell has never officially been acknowledged as containing wind speeds over 300mph by the National Weather Service or European Severe Storms Laboratory. It also has never been officially rated on the TORRO scale, regardless of what some uncited and soon-to-be-reverted edits would have you believe. Ideally a good source would come from an expert, in which case Thomas P. Grazulis is probably the one to consult here, but until a reliable source can be found, the article should not state the tornado contained a wind speed of over 300 miles per hour. GeorgeMemulous ( talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Sir MemeGod ( talk · contribs) 15:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Riley1012 ( talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I will be completing this review in the coming days. - Riley1012 ( talk) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am going to quick fail this nomination based on it being far from meeting criteria 2 (verifiability).
The main issue I will note is the use of unreliable sources, specifically, blog posts. This Stormstalker blog post is used as references 20, 30, and 31 (another note- the sources should not be broken up into different citations like this), and it is written by someone who calls themselves a "professional weather geek" and does not appear to be an actual meteorologist or other subject matter expert. The post also does not specify where the information came from. I also have similar concerns with reference 39 because I cannot tell who the author of this is. At least this blog post lists its sources- I would recommend using those more reliable sources instead of the blog post.
There are also several paragraphs that have no reliable source attached to them. Here are some examples:
Earwig's Copyvio Detector highlights a potential copyright issue with this NOAA report. Specifically, the following sentences should be rewritten:
I would suggest doing your own spot-check before renomination to avoid copyright issues.
I will also point out some issues with criteria 1 (well-written).
I believe this article has GA potential, but more work needs to be done for a successful GA nomination. Feel free to ask me any further questions. - Riley1012 ( talk) 01:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Tornado Archive does not show full damage path... Beluga732 ( talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | 1997 Jarrell tornado was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 17, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 15 May 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I know that it was taken by Scott Beckwith, who allowed the NWS to use his images of the tornado and damage. Would this mean that the "Dead Man Walking" photo is PD? MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I am going to be guiding MemeGod27 through the process of creating a solid article. For ease of discussion, I am using the good article criteria layout, however this is not a formal GAN or anything like that. Just making that note for future editors. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
National Weather Service" ---> URL (just copy/paste it). That is the only change that needs to happen. The "Author" section can stay "
NWS", but the website URL needs to be on there instead of just "National Weather Service". The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
The 1997 Jarrell F5, as it was at peak strength", however the source for does not state the photograph was taken at peak intensity. As such either (1) a source saying the photograph is the tornado at peak intensity needs to be added in the caption or (2) the caption needs to be rewritten to remove the original research ( WP:OR).
The tornado as it was forming" & "
The tornado as it was roping out outside of Jarrell". The source with the images does not directly state the tornado was forming/roping out, so a source needs to be added or the caption needs to be rewritten.
MemeGod27: We can add notes about each point (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for what each point states) and add comments under it similar to a talk page discussion. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
In the section "Tracking into Jarrell", the 5th sentence is cutoff: "The tornado tore off asphalt as it crossed County Roads 308, 305, and 307; the thickness of the asphalt pavement was roughly.". Hopefully someone knows the thickness and can complete the sentence. Jamezkoe ( talk) 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be entirely composed of sentences taken directly from previous parts of the articles, word for word. This whole article needs a clean up Jamezkoe ( talk) 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved ( non-admin closure) >>> Extorc. talk 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado → 1997 Jarrell tornado – Tornado did not actually directly hit Prairie Dell, and is not needed in the title. Prairie Dell isn't mentioned in most sources for the tornado, and the only reason that it's even in the article was because of the ArcGIS Damage Viewer and Tornado Archive. MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request ( permalink). MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Headbomb (alt):, you rececently removed part of the page + a source under the rational of "self promotion / self published". The author, Marlene Bradford, is a PhD'ed meteorologist from Texas A&M University with a doctorial on tornado forecasting. I think this qualifies as a subject-expert. Btw, the author is academically published in the field of meteorology as well ( [1]), with a publication in the American Meteorological Society. Could you explain further on your rational for removing it and/or could you re-add the information? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Since there is an active copyright discussion on the "Dead Man Walking" photo, we need a new image for the infobox. Any thoughts? While the tornado was a wedge in its' F5 phase, it also had extremely high windspeeds even as a rope. Honestly anything would represent it. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. ( My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This is more of a continuation of the previous message, but I found about 30 other photos relating to the tornado that could fit in the info box:
- 1. This one of the tornado at F4+ intensity
-2. The tornado as it was strengthening
-3. The tornado at peak intensity
For other images, see Category:1997 Jarrell tornado on commons.
WxTrinity ( talk to me!) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
There is only a single semi-reliable source for 300mph wind speeds, and despite four different citations, neither are truly reliable here. Mississippi-based meteorologist Eric Graves, on a Facebook post, stated "Winds were estimated to be over 300 mph at times", which was followed up by the mysanantonio article. Beyond this is the Plainview Herald article, which states the tornado had "winds up to 318 mph", and the SF Gate article, which I believe is the true original article, which stated victims had "their skin burned by the deadly friction of 300 mph winds." All 4 of these sources appear to be based on the Fujita scale's F5 rating, which ranged from 261-318mph, which was likely picked up by the media who sensationalized the articles by using the high ends of that as those of the tornado itself (the tornado was never confirmed to have winds over 300 miles per hour). I believe claim was fabricated by SF Gate and Plainview Herald independently, then passed onto Eric Graves, who passed it onto mysanantonio. Jarrell has never officially been acknowledged as containing wind speeds over 300mph by the National Weather Service or European Severe Storms Laboratory. It also has never been officially rated on the TORRO scale, regardless of what some uncited and soon-to-be-reverted edits would have you believe. Ideally a good source would come from an expert, in which case Thomas P. Grazulis is probably the one to consult here, but until a reliable source can be found, the article should not state the tornado contained a wind speed of over 300 miles per hour. GeorgeMemulous ( talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Sir MemeGod ( talk · contribs) 15:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Riley1012 ( talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I will be completing this review in the coming days. - Riley1012 ( talk) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I am going to quick fail this nomination based on it being far from meeting criteria 2 (verifiability).
The main issue I will note is the use of unreliable sources, specifically, blog posts. This Stormstalker blog post is used as references 20, 30, and 31 (another note- the sources should not be broken up into different citations like this), and it is written by someone who calls themselves a "professional weather geek" and does not appear to be an actual meteorologist or other subject matter expert. The post also does not specify where the information came from. I also have similar concerns with reference 39 because I cannot tell who the author of this is. At least this blog post lists its sources- I would recommend using those more reliable sources instead of the blog post.
There are also several paragraphs that have no reliable source attached to them. Here are some examples:
Earwig's Copyvio Detector highlights a potential copyright issue with this NOAA report. Specifically, the following sentences should be rewritten:
I would suggest doing your own spot-check before renomination to avoid copyright issues.
I will also point out some issues with criteria 1 (well-written).
I believe this article has GA potential, but more work needs to be done for a successful GA nomination. Feel free to ask me any further questions. - Riley1012 ( talk) 01:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Tornado Archive does not show full damage path... Beluga732 ( talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)