Talk:1997 Jarrell tornado/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 19:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Matthew Yeager (talk · contribs) 00:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I'm happy to leave this review open and work through to resolution if you all have the time. If you prefer, we could fail today and you could re-nominate at a later point when you have time to work through the issues (or if you disagree and want a different reviewer). There is much to celebrate in how improved this article has become, and just in this year too!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• On the afternoon of May 27, 1997, a deadly and powerful F5 tornado produced catastrophic damage across portions of the Jarrell, Texas area. The tornado killed 27 residents of the town, many in a single subdivision, and inflicted a total of $40.1 million (1997 USD) in damages in its 13-minute, 5.1 miles (8.2 km) track. It occurred [A]s part of a tornado outbreak across central Texas[,] it was produced by a supercell that had developed from an unstable airmass and favorable meteorological conditions at the time, including high convective available potential energy (CAPE) values and warm dewpoints.

Y Fixed. E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• If you feel note 1 is important to be included in the lead section, then please embed it, as in hundreds of cattle.

Not sure what you mean. :) E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The current sentence says In total, 27 residents of Jarrell were killed,[note1] and the tornado left behind a path of devastation, including multiple buildings swept off of their foundations. with note1 saying This figure does not include the estimated 300 livestock that were killed in the tornado. I was saying this note could be inlined instead of causing the reader to leave the lead section. For instance In total 27 residents of Jarrell, as well as hundreds of cattle, were killed. The tornado left behind a path of devastation, including multiple buildings swept off of their foundations. Matthew Yeager (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• If you feel slabs requires a note to understand, then please simplify the language in the article. Example: Multiple well-built homes on Double Creek Drive were completely swept away [destroyed] and clean slabs were left with[out] a lack of any large debris.

Y Done. E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Please first mention the abbreviation: "the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex (DFW) to the Permian Basin"

Y Done. E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• This tornado was also subject of a famous image. Is it one article infobox photo? If so then update the capture and provide the citation as needed.

Y Done, removed as I'm also not sure which image. E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• Reference 8 - "Like a war zone" is coming back 404. Could not find the links archived online.

Y Removed [reference eight]. E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Reference 12 - "Stormtrack Magazine" Would you add the editor(s) to the citation?

I have removed it, as the link comes back with a 404.

• Reference 14 - "Tornado Archive Data Explorer" Would you help me with this one? I'm seeing the path and shaded regions representing the F-scale. I looked around for further functionality but didn't find it. How do I reference this material to verify All trees in the subdivision were completely debarked, with one small tree documented to have had an electrical cord pierced through its trunk.?

Hm, apparently TA slipped through. Website is user-generated and is considered unreliable, so removed. E_F⁵ 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Reference 16 - "Storm Data" Would you add the editor(s) to the citation? Would you add the page numbers to citations since the source is 243 pages. For example the $40M damage can be referenced inline with {{rp|210}}. Would you add the damage citation to the info box also?
• Reference 18 - KLAW - I don't believe this reference is reliable. Unfortunately this underpins many of the claims about being known as the Dead man walking tornado. Please try to find references to replace this one.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I have concerns about the dead man walking tornado claim which I'll bring below.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Significant changes have been made since nomination Oct 1, with some of them being additions of non-free images by contributors (not nominators).

4. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

• Infobox photo has alt referencing what might have been a previous group of photos Top: A famous photograph of the tornado, nicknamed the "Dead Man Walking". The tornado is seen, shrouded in debris behind a tree line, while two of its sub-vortices appearing to be making walking shapes. Bottom: A scan of the tornado as it hit Jarrell, showing the ellipses-like cloud going southwest before a debris ball can be seen.
• There seems to be recent additions of non-free images that have been removed.

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Dead Man Walking

I'd like to discuss the verifiability of this specific tornado being referred to as the dead man walking tornado. I found the dead man walking concept relating to indigenous beliefs. I found a list of "dead man walking" tornadoes, although only 2011_Cullman–Arab_tornado makes reference to it, based on the photo. Here's what I feel is confusing in this article:

• There is a list of tornadoes, although only 2 (Jarrell, Cullman–Arab) reference it.
• The reference refers to the characteristic of the observed twister, most notability seen in pictures.
• This article claims notability as the "Dead man walking tornado" via redirect.
• However, the existing reference is not reliable
• The article photo is not the "famously dubbed 'Dead Man Walking'"photo.[1]

My goal is to provide clarity and remove confusion for readers. I'm not trying to find facts, but instead looking to bring the article into "reasonably well written" territory. Here are my suggestions, but I'm interested in hearing yours too.

• Determine that, for now, we remove reference as the dead man walking tornado
• Update the redirect to go to the disambiguation list
• The photo is notable, as such find more references to strengthen the "Dead man walking" photograph section

In the future you may want to make a page which focuses on the "dead man walking" history, meteorological phenomenon, and associated photos. Again, I'm bringing a proposal so that we can see a way forward. I'm leaving space to hear how you all feel we could handle the structure, content, and sources. Matthew Yeager (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Will adress issues tomorrow. For the "Dead Man Walking" page, that's basically just another name for a Multi-vortex tornado. :) E_F⁵ 01:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

But here’s the question @Matthew Yeager, what do we do about the redirect? We can’t just remove it without going through RfD. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde, after EF5's comment, I was thinking about centralizing "dead man walking" to multiple-vortex tornado. As in: 1. Edit the redirect to point to multiple-vortex tornado. 2. Improve the disambiguation page Tornado section to include a reference to multiple-vortex tornado. 3. Remove {{Redirect|}} from the top of 1997 Jarrell tornado. What you think about those changes? Matthew Yeager (talk) 03:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not necessarily a GA reviewer; I’ve only been here about six months (a year if you count me as an IP); but I do think all of these things is a good idea.

I’ve already implemented steps 1 and 3. Not particularly sure on how to reword the disambiguation to implement step 2; but I have added a link in the body of the explanation; will defer to someone else to reword the disambiguation. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)