Jump to content

Talk:2010 New Year's Eve tornado outbreak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2010 New Year's Eve tornado outbreak has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 5, 2015Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 31, 2022.

Cincinnati AR tornado

[edit]

The Cincinnati, Arkansas tornado was one of two F3/EF3 tornadoes to hit the Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers Metropolitan Area. The other hit the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas itself on June 11, 1970.--Kevjgav (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 New Year's Eve tornado outbreak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


It was either reviewing this or Vera, so...

  • "as high as 80 mph (130 km/h) in eight locations" - in or at?
 Done – At. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the meanwhile" - first two words are redundant. Try finding a new way to start the paragraph
 Done – Made a reference to the other storms. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the storm system after the tornado outbreak?
  • Why doesn't the $90 million in damage tornado have its own section?
    • Although it has the highest damage toll, the majority of the damage occurred on a military facility and there isn't much usable information other than numbers of structures destroyed. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works)
  • How did the four people die in Missouri?
  • It seems unusual you list the damage total as "$0" for the tornado "WNW of Mozier". Not a problem necessarily, just that it seems out of place. Surely the uprooted trees had some monetary value.
Perhaps it did, though in the Storm Events Archive that tornado is explicitly mentioned as having caused $0 in damage. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the tornado that caused $12,000,000 in damage could use some more info. What happened to the nursing home?
There's not too much to add, as the tornado was relatively short-tracked and the available data simply numbers the damage toll. Not much can be said about the nursing home. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the tornado "N of Terry to ESE of Luckney", don't begin two consecutive sentences with "Numerous"
 Done – Changed to several. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On a church conference center, the main church's roof was heavily damaged and several camp buildings were destroyed." - so was the roof damage on the main church or the conference center? I'm kinda confused what a conference center is, too. Seems like this could be written more simply.
 Done – I changed 'conference center' to 'complex'.
  • "suffered shingle of fascia damage" - I don't understand this at all
 Done – meant to say 'or'. Linked fascia. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "powerlines" - two words
 Done – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One person was critically injured after their mobile home was destroyed; she died of her injuries at a hospital four days later." - don't use "their" for a singular pronoun. Use "One woman was critically injured after her mobile..."
 Done – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " following the destruction of a mobile home in within the Ozark National Forest " - grammar?
 Done – Removed the 'in' TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't there any news stories on this tornado outbreak? Seems kinda odd that it almost only relies on NWS sources, which isn't a bad thing, just seems odd.

The article is decent, just needs a bit more work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 18:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]