Jump to content

Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 28 – March 2, 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTornado outbreak of February 28 – March 2, 2007 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
November 12, 2007Good article nomineeListed

Naming

[edit]

I know it is not a good name, but I couldn't think of a better one... CrazyC83 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we will have to give a mention on the blizzard in Iowa, Nebraska and Minnesota (Maybe named February-March 2007 Storm Complex) and also what will happen in eastern Canada and the northeast. Maybe, the two portions of the storm should be together.--JForget 22:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the tornadoes are the headliner in this case. There is precedent for such though. CrazyC83 22:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as bad as down south, but at least 2 people have been killed in North Dakota and hundreds of miles of interstates are closed in Minnesota and Iowa. Not to mention that this storm will affect the Northeast. So February-March 2007 Storm Complex would be a better name. ---CWY2190TC 00:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the winter portion in a section about the storm's effects on both the north and south side of it called "The Storm" but the title can change. There were also unlisted reports of tornadoes near Birmingham in Pleasant Grove (heard on CNN) and possibly also near Adamsville (when I watched the coverage live on ABC 33/40 (on the web)--JForget 03:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this qualify as an outbreak sqequence, since the storm system is responsible for three seperate days of tornado reports? --Bigphishy56 22:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it was the movement of one system across a large area. CrazyC83 00:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved "February–March 2007 Tornado Outbreak" to "February–March 2007 tornado outbreak" to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

death toll number conflcits

[edit]

I will not change the number now, but looks like we may have a info conflict here. I've just red an article, and there were reports that the toll was lowered to 7 including 5 from the High School roof collapse. See here [1]--JForget 03:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that is correct, and we should use the latest available information. Also the 5 dead in Wilcox County may be just 1. CrazyC83 03:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School, fatalities - 1990 Plainfield Tornado

[edit]

From This article

"It is the first killer tornado at a US school since 1989".[7][8]

From the Plainfield Tornado article

"By 3:30 P.M., the tornado had directly struck Plainfield High School, killing two people, including a science teacher preparing for classes the next day."

I think that the source has forgot that the Plainfield Tornado killed 2 during the F5 in 1990, although after school and not students, but this should be included anyways as schools fatalities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JForget (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC).--JForget 03:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Ratings

[edit]

Please do not post tornado ratings unless they have been confirmed by NWS offices. If you wish to add a rating, provide a source. --Bigphishy56 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive Outbreak so far. Three confirmed EF3 ratings and possibly more as the surveys from southern Alabama are concluded. --Bigphishy56 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are always at the bottom of charts involved. As for the three EF3's, that is sure to rise, as some with houses "flattened" and "destroyed" are still to come, plus of course the Enterprise tornado, which was surely at least EF3. Also the Linn County, KS tornado is still under investigation and might have been a violent one... CrazyC83 23:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NWS KS City/Pleasant Hill has some photos of homes swept clean from their foundations in Linn county. If these were well anchored homes, this tornado could very well recieve an EF4 or EF5 rating. I also think that if the tornado does recieve an EF4+ rating, there should be an added section about it, and pictures posted of flattened homes from NWS --Bigphishy56 17:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about the added section. Neither of the F4 tornadoes last year got separate sections since they did only isolated (but catastrophic) damage. The damage would be based on one house. Added sections are for cases when a tornado (and its related thunderstorm impacts) or closely related tornadoes - by themselves - would warrant an article (like Enterprise), or if there is a gold mine of stuff to write about. As for the pictures, we definitely need some on here...the Enterprise tornado itself should be the infobox picture though, and the damage pictures in a separate section at the bottom. See here for an example. CrazyC83 18:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good point. Since this tornado remained in mostly rural areas and did not cause much damage, there is no need for a seperate article. I agree with your stance. --Bigphishy56 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I heard from an unoffical source that the house that was swept away was well constructed. It sounds likely that this tornado will be rated EF4 or EF5. --Bigphishy56 01:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I'm trying to decide if I should go in depth on those ones (like with Enterprise) and create a separate section. Normally I keep such for cases when a single tornado itself warrants an article (Enterprise alone would have an article even if nothing else happened), and in this case there is a fair bit of information I have found. Thoughts? CrazyC83 02:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This tornado cut a 38 mile path, which looks to be the longest thus far of the outbreak. It was also a mile wide at points. I would go for it (I don't see how it could detract from the article) --Bigphishy56 17:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will once the NCDC data comes in, and before putting this up for GA nomination (which shouldn't be until after that data is in as there could be a few more tornadoes found). CrazyC83 03:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else did it...the NCDC was slow in adding this one in - an update to this article will need to be done once again before the next promotion (to FAC)...there might be a couple more tornadoes added late. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source NWS Tallahassee

[edit]

The NWS Tallahassee source lits alot more tornadoes then are listed on the article. Why aren't all of the tornadoes listed? I know its alot of tornadoes but I believe all of them should be listed.--Mjrmtg 13:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added all their tornadoes, but only two of them have been confirmed and rated. CrazyC83 15:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Image

[edit]

The image in the box has been removed as a copyright violation (received via OTRS). Any photos on the NWS site also on http://www.tornadohead.com/022807chase.htm are not free.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know about the other site. I just assumed it was an NWS photo. One of the EF3 tornadoes should get the infobox photo then (Enterprise preferably) if one can be found. I made that one originally being the strongest. CrazyC83 02:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2nd

[edit]

I could be wrong, but I believe the 3 tornadoes added today in Lake Park, GA, Cherry Lake, FL and Monticello FL occurred on the morning of March 2nd, not March 1st. --Mjrmtg 15:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is correct (actually the overnight hours), however, due to the fact there was no real break in the activity until then - and it ended after that - I just put them together with a note at the top. CrazyC83 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After a re-analysis (where nine new tornadoes were identified and two was combined into one), there was enough distinct activity on March 2 that I separated them. CrazyC83 00:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Here are a couple more sites with some usable images of the damage.

Gopher backer 01:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

[edit]

Nice article! It is close to GA status so I am putting the nomination on hold for you to address some items:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Specific feedback

[edit]
  • Are there any free meteorological images of the storm available?
  • Your citations really need to be formatted with the {{Cite web}} template so readers can see the title and access date of each reference.
  • There are a few redlinks for items that are unlikely to ever become articles. Try to severely limit redlinks or actually create stub articles.
  • The prose sections of the article need to be copyedited by another interested editor. There are a lot of grammar problems.
  • Under the "Meteorological synopsis" heading:
    • "Farther south, though, expected activity in Oklahoma and Arkansas did not take place due to the fact the atmospheric cap held up." Grammar.
    • "A high risk of severe storms - the first such issuance since April 7, 2006 - was issued for a large part of the Deep South for March 1 as the cold front moved eastward." Use em dashes for breaks in sentences, not hyphens. Rewrite to active voice so we know who issued, and what was issued. The way it reads now is that "high risk" was issued, but I suspect they actually issue a "warning", "notice", etc.
    • "The activity began almost immediately, with several isolated tornadoes taking place that morning across the Mississippi Valley, with one of them producing the first fatality of the outbreak." Consider used "causing" instead of "producing".
    • "However, the most intense activity began around noon and continued throughout the afternoon and evening, with southern Alabama and southern Georgia the hardest hit." The ending phrase needs a verb such as "being".
    • "Nearly continuous supercells formed north of the Gulf of Mexico and produced many tornadoes, some of them hitting large population centers and were very devastating."
    • "As the squall line overtook the cells, a few tornadoes - all EF0 - took place overnight in Florida and extreme southern Georgia within the squall line before the severe weather emerged in the Atlantic Ocean that morning." Again, use em dashes, not hypens. I can't understand the last part of this sentence and how it relates to the first part.
    • "The final tornado was a waterspout..." What's a waterspout?
    • "...along with scattered large hail, the largest of which were as large as baseballs." I think we can say they are large once.
    • "On the other side of the low..." What's a low?
    • Use en dashes for number ranges, not hyphens.
    • Why are there seven citations at then end of the last sentence? Do they all support the last sentence?
  • Under the "Enterprise area tornado" heading:
    • "Some early reports suggested as many as 18 deaths, which was confirmed as too high." is grammatically incorrect.
    • "At the school, all of the fatalities were as a result of a collapsed concrete wall." Grammar.
    • "After the tornado hit, students from both schools that were not injured were relocated to Hillcrest Baptist Church, adjacent to the school which was not damaged, to meet up with shocked parents." Change to active voice so we know who relocated them.
  • The Aftermath section should be an H2 heading (not a subheading of Enterprise) and is a little weak. Surely there is more information available about repair and relief efforts. You end with a statement about the school debate, but you don't talk about who debated the topic, and there is no citation for the debate. I'm guessing a lot more information is available about this aspect of the article.

Great work so far - I hope you can address these items in a timely basis so we can get this passed. --Bloodzombie 15:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done most of the grammar corrections, and I'll try and improve the citeweb's next. A question about the heading for the Aftermath section: why do you think it should be H2? That section seems to focus solely on the aftermath of the enterprise issue, not the larger case of disaster recovery from the season. Do you think it should be rewritten/removed to cover all of the recovery efforts, or...? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question.. are there sources available about the aftermath in other areas? If so, I'd say that section should be expanded to mention efforts in other areas. If sources are not available, it should be fine just focusing on Enterprise. --Bloodzombie 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd expect there to be more general sources (no specific reason, it just seems logical). I'll see if I can dig up anything. Otherwise, the enterprise area could just serve as a mini case-study as you suggested. I'll work on that and the ref formatting. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were pics available earlier but they were determined to have not been free use. I'll look for one for one of the EF4 tornadoes. CrazyC83 02:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, thanks for your great work. I feel that a good faith effort was made to meet my requests, so I am passing the GA nomination. ---- Bloodzombie (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I've been upgrading the references to cite web format, and have found a few dead links. Anyone feel like trying to fix them?

  • Scattered severe weather was also reported in North Carolina on March 2 producing a possible tornado before the storms moved offshore into the Atlantic Ocean.[2]
  • In total, at least 370 houses were damaged or destroyed, according to Mayor Kenneth Boswell.[29]
  • Enterprise, Alabama, which was hit the hardest, sustained damages in excess of $307 million.[4]
  • Some early reports suggested that there had been as many as 18 deaths, which was found to be an over-estimation
  • In total, at least 370 houses were damaged or destroyed, according to Mayor Kenneth Boswell.
  • On the morning of March 3, President George W. Bush visited the community and declared Coffee County a disaster area. He went into the school and also took an aerial view of the devastation.[32]
  • It was given an initial rating of EF3 on the Enhanced Fujita Scale

--Bfigura (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Found some through the Wayback machine. --Bfigura (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February–March 2007 tornado outbreak sequence. 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}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:02, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tornado outbreak of February 28 – March 2, 2007. 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) 22:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_February_28_–_March_2,_2007&oldid=1195436850"