Talk:Tornado over Kansas

Chained gate

I don’t believe the gate in the painting is chained but is actually a weight and chain closure, like this one:[1]. Such gates were fairly common on farms with the weight composed of any small heavy object made of stone or old scrap iron. Thriley (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Earliest photo and inspiration claims

'Photographs of a June 2, 1929, tornado passing through Hardtner, Kansas, were the first to clearly capture a tornado's shape and likely served as visual guidance for Curry's tornado in Tornado over Kansas.' is a big claim in two respects, neither of which is cited: was it really the first photo to clearly capture the shape of a tornado, and how do you know it 'likely served' as his inspiration - was it widely published at the time? Did he mention having seen it? Or is that the author's supposition?

With regards to it being the first photo, how about the one by taken by Lucille Handberg near the town of Jasper, Minnesota, on 8 July 1927, that clearly shows the funnel of a tornado? Her photograph has become a classic image; (I only know of this one because it's on the cover of Siouxsie and the Banshee's album Tinderbox (and apparently it had previously been used on the covers of Miles Davis' Bitches Brew (1970) and Deep Purple's Stormbringer (1974).) - if that's just one random photo I know of, might there be many more earlier ones? 109.152.244.77 (talk) 09:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

hmm, interesting. You have great taste in music OP - thanks for posting. Ceoil (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it should be among the first, per the citation at the end of the paragraph (Adams p. 123). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Great thanks, its sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I further added that the "likely served" should be "may have served", and clarified that this was the author's belief. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Ridiculously short

If this painting is so famous, the writers should be able to come up with more than a 24k article. This shouldn't be an FA. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 19:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

An FA should cover a single subject in a comprehensive and well-researched manner, as specified in FA criteria. There is no "length requirement" to become an FA. Other editors have agreed on the FAC review that the article covers the painting to a satisfactory extent, so instead of complaining about the article size itself, could you instead offer any more constructive feedback like specific aspects of the painting or scholarly analyses the article missed out of to justify increasing the length? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry it doesn't meet your rude and accusatory standards IP. As the above comment suggests, if you actually gave a comment of any meaningful substance (e.g. what information is left out) then perhaps you would not waste everyone's time. Aza24 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You guys waste time by writing "comprehensive" articles that are so short. By what you guys said a one sentence article could be an FA. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

In what respect do you believe the article to not be "comprehensive"? I'll be happy to add more sources. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, user:70.161.8.9 went to Talk:Katie Joplin on the day it was the TFA as well. There, the user expressed concerns about that article size as well, and several users, including me, explain them pretty much the same the users here are concluding. 70.161.8.90, you can't use talk pages to express your concerns on size. If you believe articles require specific sizes in order to be promoted as featured articles, you have to express your concerns at WT:FA. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)