Jump to content

Talk:2013 El Reno tornado/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

speculative statements

"This action, in direct contrast to the recommended plan of action, could have resulted in the loss of over 500 lives had the tornado maintained itself and passed over the congested freeways." Pure speculation. It's great that someone's speculation is referenced, but it still doesn't belong here. Had the tornado maintained a longer track into more densely populated areas there's no way to know for sure how many would have been killed on the roads, how many of those on the road were there because they were fleeing, or how many would have been killed in structures - perhaps lives would have been saved by fleeing - that's why it's controversial. How many lives were saved by fleeing the May 20 tornado when the same controversial call-to-action was made? Besides, the roads would have been packed regardless of any "call-to-action". The "call-to-action" is appropriately identified as controversial, but then the article proceeds to make the assertion that it was a misguided call-to-action, which is controversial and doesn't belong here.Pd7342 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this can be included per WP:SPECULATION.United States Man (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
ummm, are we reading the same thing from your WP:SPECULATION link? "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable..."Pd7342 (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you'll read the top paragraph in that section, you will see that it says that speculation can be included if backed up by a reliable source. Weather Underground is a reliable source. United States Man (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Your source says that "Thousands of cars were bumper-to-bumper on the roads as a dangerous tornado approached them. Had the El Reno tornado plowed directly down one of these car-choked interstates, the death toll could have easily exceeded 500." And it says "This terrible piece of advice likely contributed to the incredible traffic jams that we saw on I-35, I-40, I-44, and other local roads Friday night." You are drawing a further speculation that absent the controversial "call-to-action" these roads would not have been jammed. Perhaps you could say that the "call-to-action" contributed to the congestion on the roads, as your source does. But the way it is written reads as if the potential death toll would have been 500 persons higher due directly to the "call-to-action", which, again, is much more than your source is saying.Pd7342 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
I just reworded that bit in the lead. Hopefully it's clearer now that it was a combination of rush hour and (only suspected) the "call-to-action." I tried to word it in a way to convey the fact they were on the roads could have resulted in the deaths. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Full protection a bit much

This article should not have been fully protected. The so-called content dispute was simply the result of a single unregistered user insisting on the same nonconstructive edit with no explanation. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there have been two major disruptions this week. Since it is only a week, I agree with the protection. United States Man (talk) 01:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The reason that I used a full protection rather than a semi-protection is because when protecting for content disputes it's generally best practice to full protect when one of the parties is autoconfirmed, mostly so that protection doesn't become an "unfair advantage". My advice is to use the week to hash out a quick consensus here on the talk page, that way you'll have a solid consensus to show if they try edit warring again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 16:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Zero explanation of the "why" behind Mike Morgan's call for evacuation

As it stands, the article makes it seem like the standing NWS advice to jump in your double-wide's bathtub is a guaranteed path to safety. Perhaps after the monster widest-ever EF5 turns your prefab house into matchsticks it will gently deposit you and the bathtub in the next county over like Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz?

Not to put a bummer on the condemnation parade, but the general consensus among meteorologists (read: not public affairs officers) since the Greensburg and Joplin EF5s has been "In a car or in your hall closet, an EF5 is going to kill you." The stats back this up; both of those storms had plenty of people sheltering fearfully in closets and bathtubs and they died anyway. NWS, being a government agency, continues to insist that some should be condemned to certain death in order to avoid the much-dreaded "civil panic" that all good government employees fear most of all. Despite the fact that Morgan could clearly see that the tornado on radar was definitely an EF4-5, he evidently should have told those people a bunch of crap instead of giving them the slimmest hope of survival.

If you can sit there and say you'd rather shelter in a bathtub than run from an EF5, you deserve the death you've got coming to you. The fact that many people took the stupid route and ran directly to the highway instead of going a few miles at a right angle to the storm via secondary roads (as an intelligent person would have) is not Morgan's fault. Court Appointed Shrub (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

While we appreciate this input, please do not include it in the article unless you have a reference you can cite to support it. Personal opinions of editors are not to be included in articles per WP:OR.TornadoLGS (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This falls more into the category of WP:FORUM. United States Man (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
This does, true. I was referring to the edit to the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Meteorologist's thoughts

Just so I can add an "intensity" (controversy) section when the NCDC reports are out

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi protection?

Should this article be semi-protected? It seems the IP user who kept removing the Mike Morgan statement in the lead has returned as a sock. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Already protected by administrator Drmies. and User(s) blocked.. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Maximum Size

I just saw a story from KFOR-TV saying that the maximum diameter of the tornado has been revised and increased to 4.3 miles. Recommend updating the article accordingly to reflect this new information. Story on KFOR website. Orca1 9904 (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

We may mention it, but it does not appear to be the official path width, but rather an independent estimate. I would rather cite the research article itself if at all possible.TornadoLGS (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The 4.3 mile value comes from the mesocyclone of the supercell over 300 feet above ground level, not the size of the actual tornado. This is where the theoretical wind value of 335 mph comes from as well. The tornado remains 2.6 miles wide and officially an EF-3. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

new info?

http://kfor.com/2013/09/20/study-may-31-el-reno-twister-was-4-3-miles-wide/

it apperes the tornado might have been 4.3 miles wide had winds up to 335.5mph and the sub vorties where up to 1+ miles wide...

em this is getting mest up... pretty sure some one put sotming wrong in this info .... if not then this is realy gona mess up the ef scale... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion just above this one. This is not official. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Mulhall > El Reno or vice versa?

Respectfully, if the article acknowledges the measured width of the Mulhall, OK storm of 3 MAY 1999, why is the El Reno storm repeatedly claimed to be the largest on record? In addition, some of the footnotes supporting the El Reno storm's size clearly state "is believed to be the widest on record," a phrase which seems a bit weaselly to me. Further, the Mulhall storm was also closely measured by radar, has been extensively studied by meteorologists (see cites in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Oklahoma_tornado_outbreak#Mulhall.2C_Oklahoma) and had a significantly wider damage swath than the El Reno storm. It seems to me that either the Mulhall storm's been overlooked or that there's not really a clear judgment on which of the two was the larger storm. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The tornado width of >4 mi for the Muhall tornado is not considered official. The [>4 mi wide] Muhall width was measured by radar just like El Reno was, but ground surveys in addition to radar indicated the 2.6 mi width for the El Reno tornado. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to be cheeky or snide, but either the lede is wrong or you are. From the lede (emphasis mine): "During the early evening of May 31, 2013, the widest tornado in recorded history according to radar analysis occurred over rural areas of central Oklahoma." That's a clear indication, especially when coupled with the rest of the first graf, that the El Reno storm also occurred over rural country and that no distinctive damage track was available from which to measure the storm's width. So clearly, the assessment of the El Reno storm's width is being made based on the same sort of data used to assess the Mulhall storm's width. Besides, the assertions about El Reno's width have been coming in since the night of the storm itself -- far too early for measurements of the damage track to have been made, even if such a track had been available. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the "according to radar analysis" part is leftover from when there was a tidbit about it being the second-strongest tornado on record. Since the 2.6 miles is confirmed in the final survey results, I'll remove the bit in question so there's less confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Radar analysis indeed was used in both the Mulhall and 2013 El Reno tornadoes. In the case of El Reno, radar data was actually used to *constrain* the size of the tornado vs what was observed in the damage survey whilst the radar wind speeds are higher than would be expected from any damage found (primarily due to the paucity of damage indicators). Obviously this is confusing. The ratings issue is discussed in the article. Regarding the size, path widths are notoriously difficult to determine and the El Reno case is particularly complex. There is even some question on what defines a tornado (vs a tornadocyclone/low-level mesocyclone, RFD and other winds). See work by Doswell, Wurman, and others on the subject. It is correct that the El Reno width mentioned in the article is official and that the radar measurement for Mulhall is not. The Hallam, Nebraska tornado was determined by damage survey and previously was the largest in the official record (which is Storm Data). Evolauxia (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Mike Morgan Primary Source

Here's a source for anyone who wants to help balance the anti-evacuation sentiments in the article. This is a first-hand interview with the meteorologist himself in which he gives a lengthy defense for his actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqwrbsQmhVU
http://traffic.libsyn.com/weatherbrains/wb102113.mp3 - Audio only

--74.133.45.91 (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Data Collecting Survey

I not sure if this should be included in the article, but there is a survey at this website: http://el-reno-survey.net. This project aims to collect information about the tornado in an attempt to create a public database (I believe). The database also aims to collect individuals' accounts of the tornado. The video footage could all be hooked together based off of detected lightning strikes from the National Lightning Detection Network. According to the site, this would result in time accuracy to within a second. From the sounds of it, there are even a few National Weather Service personnel, including a Storm Prediction Center forecaster (Roger Edwards), who support the project. As quoted by the site, "Anton Seimon and John Allen are co-leading the development of this database with the active support of David Hoadley, Elke Edwards and Tracie Seimon." The website looks legitimate to me, and appears to have the potential to be significant. Are there any comments? Dustin talk 19:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It cant hurt to include two or three lines about the project in the aftermath section - but i wouldnt go including any of the data yet.Jason Rees (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed with Jason Rees. Just a few lines about it for now. United States Man (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for responding. Like I said, this looks like it may be quite significant, although it doesn't appear that they have released any of the data to the public as of yet. Dustin talk 12:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The El Reno Survey Project was launched by lightning expert Anton Seimon who has a PhD in atmospheric sciences as well as storm chaser/photographer Elke Edwards, the wife of SPC forecaster and veteran chaser Roger Edwards, who got Seimon on the WeatherBrains show with James Spann, and also involves pioneering storm chaser David Hoadley, among others. It has strong support from both the research and chasing communities, who have readily contributed to the project. Both the DOW and RaXPol teams contributed radar data and dozens of chasers contributed their photo/video recordings and GPS logs. The project was discussed quite a bit at the National Storm Chaser Convention (which Tim Samaras cofounded) last weekend.
I didn't see this discussion until alerted to it by Dustin which was after I already edited the article. The data will eventually be open access and is intended to at some point be expanded to include all events. Evolauxia (talk) 22:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I could be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that you didn't even see this discussion before making the edits? If that's right, then it's one major coincidence that the discussion and your edits occurred within such a short period of time of one another! Still, thanks anyway. Dustin talk 22:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism of rating

Please stop changing the rating back to EF5. This storm was initially rated EF5 based on the top wind speed, but the worst of the damage was in the EF3 range, and thus the National Weather Service downgraded the rating to EF3 a couple months later. I know the rating has been disputed because of all this, but if the National Weather Service says it was an EF3 then that's what it was.--Kevjgav (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I have finally managed to add a note to the infobox explaining the estimated winds and the reason for which the tornado received a rating of EF3 anyway. Dustin (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Assessment?

I am not sure what this article should be assessed as... I am not particularly skillful in that area, though, so would anyone mind assessing this article? That is, search through it and see in what ways it could be improved? This is a subject of extreme importance in the field of tornado-related studies, so it is important that it be improved in whatever way is possible. Thanks to anyone who responds! Dustin (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I really wish WikiProject Severe weather was a bit more active... nobody seems to have noticed this matter of importance days after I put it forth. I don't want to resort to selectively notifying individual involved members, but if it becomes necessary, I will. Dustin (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm from wikiproject Oklahoma, but I will take a look later today on the assessment. As for notifying people try placing a notice on the projects talk page too. Just placing a notice here sometimes doesn't do much to get a projects attention. Hope they helps.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 21:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Four deaths, or three?

Article states that there were four storm chaser deaths but names only three victims (Samaras, Samaras, and Young). Who was the fourth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.175.70 (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The fourth chaser killed was Richard Henderson. He was an amateur chaser and not a member of Twistex. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2013 El Reno 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Lack of Ground Scouring despite the detected windspeeds

I think the reason it lacked the ground scouring is because the tornado was so massive, so the winds were less focused unlike most EF5s which normally scour the ground pretty severely. I think a good example of focused ground scouring is the Philadelphia EF5, and the El Reno EF3 is a good example of mostly broad winds rather than focused winds.--AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC) 'Bold text'

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 El Reno tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CycloneIsaac (talk · contribs) 00:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Reviewing later.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


*I believe I have addressed everything. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


295 mph is an F-5 on both the original and enhanced Fujita scale.

A tornado that has had winds clocked at 295 mph should be rated an EF-5, not EF-3. And in fact, according to the estimated wind speeds for each category, 295 mph is not only an EF-5 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale, it is also an F-5 on the original Fujita Scale, too. Darthvader1 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The Enhanced Fujita scale takes into account more than just wind speeds in its rating of tornados, it's also a matter of how much damage was done and how badly that damage was. While the El Reno tornado was very large and did have winds 200+ it did not produce damage in line with an EF5 rating. The reasons behind the lower rating were mostly due to the fact that the tornado mostly went over farmland and didn't hit any major structures, causing damage more in line with an EF3 rating.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 08:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Try reading this source: [1] for more info. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 El Reno 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Estimated wind speed from the Damage Survey....

From both the infobox and the article, we get what the Doppler Radar indicated the wind speed was for the El Reno tornado. But was the exact wind speed indicated from the damage survey ever released, or would that had just stirred up more controversy?--Halls4521 (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I think the worst damage the surveyors found was roughly consistent with 155 mph wind, but other factors are also taken into account, like weather the areas near the worst damage are also damaged (if not, the worst damage may be a weak structure, that took less wind to blow down) also, it seems some NWS offices give an exact wind estimate, while others only assign an EF-rating. I can't find a wind speed estimate for the preliminary EF-3 rating, when those at the local NWS office were told of the radar readings (instantaneous gusts some distance above the ground 295 mph) the rating was changed on the assumption that 3-second gusts on the ground must have been 210+ in some of the fields where there was nothing to damage (210 mph is within EF-5). But official weather service policy is not to use radar in ratings as the relationship between radar indicated winds and surface wind is not known. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
That makes sense, thanks. I guess they stopped focusing on the estimated wind speed configured in the damage survey when the radar readings came out. Of course a lot of people still incorrectly believe the F-scale and EF-scale ratings calculate the storms wind speed (i.e. hurricane ratings) instead of the intensity of damage, so they probably wouldn't understand, at first, why it's rated EF-3 while Doppler recorded winds associated with EF-5 torndoes.--Halls4521 (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The EF-scale IS intended as a wind estimate(and so was the F-scale, it just wasn't a very good one), and the weather service used to allow radar, I belive that in 2004 a tornado near Rosel KS did EF-2 damage, (111-136 mph) but radar showed 180 mph wind, and it was over a lot of open fields with nothing to damage, so it was rated EF-4. The issue with the radar is that it measures instantaneous maximum wind, often at some altitude off the ground, while the EF-scale refers to 3 second averaged gusts near the surface, so if wind was 120 mph for 3 sec, but 180 for 0.1 sec, that is only EF-2. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
So, the radar measurement of >295 mph could have just been for ≤1 sec., and several feet (even hundreds of feet) off the ground, with no way to 100% prove otherwise. Still, whether measuring wind speed or intensity of damage, both scales doesn't really make the Doppler radar measurements unreliable, but further show that the EF-scale does need some more fine tuning in measuring how strong a tornado really is (the reason it replaced the F-scale in the first place). Doing so may reduce disputes and confusion with the ratings like with this storm, as well as 1953 Worcester, 1974 Tanner II, 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham, and 2011 Joplin --Halls4521 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, although I just found this paper[2], which says winds were measured by radar at 301 mph within 65 ft of the ground. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Wind speed and rank relative to the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado

I see two issue regarding the wind speed measurement for this tornado. The cited source states that measured maximum wind speed in this tornado was 135 m/s. Rounded to three significant figures, that works out to 302 mph, not the 301 stated in the article. Shouldn't the article, then, state that the measured wind speed was 302 mph? Though I noticed that 301 mph also rounds to 135 m/s. A minor issue, I guess, but I thought I would mention it. The other issue: this article states that winds in the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado were slightly faster than in the El Reno tornado, yet the articles for both storms give maximum wind speeds of 301 mph. Wouldn't that mean that these tornadoes are tied, or is there some missing information here? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I will look into this, a lot of places reported 295, 296, "over 295" or "almost/nearly 300" and said that El Reno 2013 was slightly weaker than Bridge Creek 1999, but the actual paper written about the El Reno tornado says 135m/s. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I seem to remember the report of ~295 mph came out pretty soon after the tornado and 302 mph came some time later. The cited paper with the latter number was published in 2015. So unless an earlier publication also reported 302 mph, other sources would have had two years to spread around the ~295 mph figure. I suspect the "slightly weaker than the 1999 tornado" statement would have come from that. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
I think that's right, BTW I changed it to 302, I think I mistakenly truncated 135 m/s to 301 mph, you are right that 135 m/s is 302 mph. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The link for the video "Dangerous Day Ahead" just says 'video unavailable.' There is a link to it that someone archived, and that link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBCN9DYDCDs I've watched it, and it is the documentary directly from the Weather Channel on TV.

AgenderKeef (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@AgenderKeef: I don't know about the original, but the link you provide appears to have been uploaded by a third party, likely in violation of copyright, so we can't use it. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Image of track?

It would be great if an image of the actual track could be included, if an appropriately licensed one can be found or made. This one from weather.gov is particularly good, not sure what their image licenses are like: https://www.weather.gov/images/oun/wxevents/20130531/maps/elreno_tornado_ef0contour_with_times.jpg MrAureliusRTalk! 02:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@MrAureliusR: Since it's on the NWS website it should be public domain. The licensing template on the commons would be {{PD-NWS}}. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@TornadoLGS and MrAureliusR: Google Earth isn't public domain. Images hosted on NOAA sites aren't inherently PD unless they're taken by an employee or created by one using NOAA programs (given any other material used in the program is PD as well). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

NOAA EF3+ scale rating

its to note that it went from EF3 to EF5 to EF3 to now EF3+[1] they recently also updated to let EF3+ damage as a polygon. shown up on the list as EF5, EF4, EF3+, EF3, EF2, EF1, EF0, TSDM/Wind, N/A,

since EF3+ is its own thing compared to all the other along with tsdm and N/A(EFU). it would be nice to change the rating here to EF3+ since its a EF3 and EF5 edit war , EF3+ kind of covers both Joshoctober16 (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Could we worth mentioning, though people changing the rating to EF5 isn't an issue at this point since the article is indefinitely semi-protected. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hail storm

How large is the hail storm on 2013 El Reno tornado Sarge Da2 (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

The El Reno tornado is listed here as a EF3 tornado. This tornado had the highest recorded wind speed of 302 mph, well over the EF3 rating of 136 - 165 (according to Wikipedia). EF5 is 200mph+ Please correct the information about this tornado. 199.116.193.64 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The official rating of this tornado is EF3, as no damage higher than EF3 was found. The EF scale is ultimately a damage scale rather than a wind scale. The matter of the wind speeds and this tornado's rating is discussed in the "intensity" subsection of this article. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Timeframe of enlargement to maximum size?

There is a statement here in the article which is interesting but somewhat unclear:

rapid enlargement to a width of 2.6 mi (4.2 km) in diameter in about 30 seconds

But the article doesn't specify when exactly this occurred. I'm pretty sure, from my reading of primary and secondary sources, that the tornado didn't expand to its maximum size within 30 seconds of it touching the ground. This statement seems like it could be impactful, and to communicate something important about the tornado, but because we don't know the time or beginning size of the tornado when this 30 seconds occurred, it dulls the impact.

When did this enlargement begin and how large was the tornado when it began?--Beneficii (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2023

In the second paragraph, change "Paul Samaras and Young" to "Paul, Samaras, and Young" Legofan42 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Paul Samaras is the full name. M.Bitton (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

add it was 2.6 miles wide and had wind speeds of up to 302 ± 34 mph Turtleeeeeee (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"Dangerous day ahead" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dangerous day ahead has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22 § Dangerous day ahead until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"Dangerous Day Ahead" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Dangerous Day Ahead has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 22 § Dangerous Day Ahead until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 19:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

104.235.113.83 (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 (beginning with "alongside rush hour traffic") and the evacuations section at the bottom of the article should either be combined or one of these sections should be removed as they seem to repeat information.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Charliehdb (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_El_Reno_tornado/Archive_1&oldid=1243234618"