This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as High-importance). Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

	1899 New Richmond tornado was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 20, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed February 11, 2009 Good article nominee Listed January 16, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on June 12, 2011, June 12, 2015, and June 12, 2022. Current status: Delisted good article

Why isn't the Fujita Scale (F0, F1, F2, etc...) for this tornado listed? (: If there is a reason it isn't, the reason really should be said. The article lists the damage, which is what the ratings are based on, I believe. Therefore, shouldn't its rating on the Scale be able to be determined?  — [ Unsigned comment added by KEB ( talk • contribs).]

The Fujita scale was not created until 1973, and only retro-actively applied to tornadoes since 1950. While it is likely that this tornado was an F4, or even F5, without structural analysis by engineers, or extreme photographic and testimonial evidence, there cannot be an objective rating on the F-scale. Don't forget, in the days before modern engineering, buildings were not built as sturdily as today, so complete destruction of a small town might occur with an F3 or even F2 tornado. Runningonbrains 21:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC) reply

I live in New Richmond and it is most certainly not in east central Wisconsin. Mark fixed and closed. 12.193.140.196 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I made a minor edit to this article.... There is no such thing as Lake St. Croix. The town of Lake St. Croix Beach, Minnesota lies on the St. Croix River (Wisconsin-Minnesota). Gopher backer 23:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Never mind, after further research I've discovered that Lake St. Croix refers to a wide part of the river. Gopher backer 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, I'm currently reviewing this article for its nomination as a Good Article and will be leaving notes here so you know what I'm thinking as I read it. I've already checked against the "quick fail criteria", making sure that the article is verifiable, generally neutral, stable, and does not have any copyright problems, so right now I'm checking to see if the article is formatted correctly, adequately referenced, and covers a broad range of information in a completely neutral manner. I'm also documenting any edits I make here as part of the review. Here goes:

• Ok, to begin with, I did a quick reading of the article just to get a feel for it. A few sections struck me as being slightly biased, using peacock words and so forth. The citations looked ok, and it seemed to cover a sufficient amount of information. I'm going to read it in detail now to double-check everything.
• Lead is a good summary, short but sweet.
• Warning - I'm going to be blunt here. "June 12 was a very warm, sunny day for most of the afternoon." Who cares? Written like this, the sentence doesn't really serve a purpose in the article. Skip right to the circus (which should be left in), or reword it to somehow relate it to the subject without sounding "peacocky".
• Changed "will some hail" -> "with some hail"
• Don't start sentences with "And". It's bad grammar.
• Changed "The entire town, save the extreme west end, was totally destroyed." to "All but the extreme west end of the town was completely destroyed." It just reads better to me that way. And I really don't like the word "totally", it sounds too peacocky.
• "The damage wrought by the tornado was so complete, the town had to be essentially rebuilt." The tone of this sentence does not sound encyclopedic to me. There are other sentences I've read to this point that lack a professional tone as well, this is just an example. Try to make it sound as though it's being read off a speech prepared by your strictest college professor. Or something like that. For this sentence, maybe something along the lines of "The extensive damage caused by the tornado required much of the town to be rebuilt."
• List of peacock/non-NPOVish type words:

• unprecedented (lead)
• swept to their deaths (paragraph 3, Synopsis)
• turned out to be a death trap (paragraph 3, Synopsis)
• totally (paragraph 1, Aftermath)

General Comments: Ok. I'm afraid this article still needs a little bit of work. Try to reword some of the sentences to get a more formal tone out of them. A few places in here sounded almost as though they were out of a dramatic novel - the "death trap" line comes to mind here. Remember that this is an encyclopedia. I know that this was a tragedy, but try to make the article a little less tragic. You can say basically the same thing without the same phrasing, just use my changes and comments above as examples. The information covered in this article is very complete - I really don't know what else there is to say about a tornado that only lasts a few hours - and you've done a good job of making sure everything is referenced. This is really close, but I don't think it's there quite yet.
The Verdict: To allow these concerns to be corrected, I am going to place this nomination ON HOLD for a period of no more than 7 days. I am confident that you will be able to improve the article enough in that time to allow it to pass with flying colors when it gets reviewed next. As I've said, this is good, it just needs a little tweaking to make it Good. Good work so far, and good luck with the rest! Hersfold ^{( talk/ work)} 23:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the very long delay in getting back to this - I've been away for the last week or so. Unfortunately, during the hold period, only one edit was made to the article other than a spelling correction I made. I do not believe this single edit addresses the concerns noted above, and so I cannot promote this article to GA status at this time. I do recommend you continue to work on the article, however, as this is possible GA material. Thank you for your patience, and good luck. Hersfold ^{( talk/ work)} 14:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC) reply

To comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), I changed the article name (tornado is now lower case).

Changed name again per Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 22:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:1899 New Richmond tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have read through the article and checked the references. The article is clearly written and well referenced. It covers the relevant information in an informative and engaging way. — Mattisse ( Talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b ( MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c ( OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very nice article. Congratulations!

— Mattisse ( Talk) 04:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The first sentence of the article called the tornado a disaster on the Great Plains. Wisconsin is not considered part of the Great Plains. Although parts of Wisconsin have/had prairie ecosystems, the region known as the Great Plains does not usually, if ever, encompass the state of Wisconsin. I removed this reference for that reason. MDuchek ( talk) 15:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1899 New Richmond tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505134131/http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/8.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/8.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

The last paragraph in the "Historical Significance" section, despite been 100% accurate, may be at risk of been deleted. Unfortunately, I believe every sentence will need an actual verifiable reference as proof. Some do not have a reference and the rest are using other Wikipedia articles as a reference. (Are we allowed to do this?)-- Halls4521 ( talk) 22:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC) reply

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:1899 New Richmond tornado/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Doing an individual reassessment for this. This article is no where near GA status right now. It has numerous unsourced statements, references don't have pages displayed, and more. It will take a lot to fix this article.

If there is no activity on the reassessment and article for a week then I will delist. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 19:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Onegreatjoke: It has been 9 days. -- 216.194.32.123 ( talk) 18:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Closing as DELIST for inactivity. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 01:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC) reply