Talk:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado

Links outdated
The links to the NWS damage survey page are outdated page are outdated, because the ones on this page lead to the page that says 170 MPH, while it should link to the one that says 195 MPH. If someone could fix the link to the survey page, that would be great. Thank you! Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 01:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See reference #1 in the article. That is the updated damage survey. You clicked on reference #14 to see the outdated one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Section Titling
I believe it looks a tad messy to have a ton of section titles, especially since the towns it hit were quite small, and the damage was miniscule compared to Rolling Fork. We could possibly do county section names like what was done for Mayfield, by intensity like Joplin, or something else. Just think it would make navigating the article for a viewer a bit easier. Wikiwillz (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Preliminary Rating
Hey. I wanted to ping you here so we don’t get into an edit war. In the NWS upgrade to EF4/195, at the bottom of the message, it says, “The information in this statement is preliminary and subject to change pending final review of the event and publication in NWS Storm Data.” I reached out to NWS Jackson earlier this year and they replied saying how the process works:. Basically, everything NWS publishes to the public is preliminary until published in the Storm Data application, which is a NOAA-only application. NCEI then uses Storm Data along with other info (like from the United States Army Corps of Engineers) to make the finalized reports. NWS Jackson actually said, “You should be able to view/query the finalized weather events we have entered into Storm Data in the NCEI Storm Events Database.” With all that said, since the Rolling Fork tornado report did not release in the NCEI Storm Events Database yet, it is still a preliminary rating. (While typing this, I saw you re-reverted the preliminary wording. I encourage you to self-revert as it makes the article technically inaccurate per the source which is cited on that sentence.) Hope this helps! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but you also have to realize that just because its preliminary doesn't mean we have to list that EVERY time. A final report may be the final analysis, but all the PNSs for ALL weather events indicate that anyway, so it's not necessary to put it again. Also, all our list page articles say, "Tornado counts are considered preliminary until final publication in the database of the National Centers for Environmental Information," so it's not like it's not being mentioned at all. When we made the article for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, it was never mentioned that the EF4 rating was preliminary (although I will admit that the lead did not say the rating at all at first). This is not about whether or not the rating is preliminary (it is after all until the final report comes out), but rather about the precedence this would set because every recorded weather event is deemed as preliminary until given a final report. I do understand, however, that this situation is sort of different because this is an individual article and most tornadoes that we designate to get such articles don't get them until much later and at the end of the day, I do see you point. Therefore, for the sake of not wanting to continue petty arguments over minor details like this, I will self-revert. Chess  Eric  18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that you explain that, feel free to keep it out. Like you said, it is a minor detail that really isn’t that important. When you first removed it, I didn’t know if you realized the PNS said it was preliminary or not, as there was a previous editor who said the same thing as you (that it wasn’t preliminary). I didn’t want to fight over it, more of explain that it is preliminary. That said, you did a really good job of explaining why we don’t necessarily need to include “preliminary” in the lead, like the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. I know you went ahead and self-reverted, but you are welcome to revert the self-revert ( mouthful I created by being too petty in all honesty ). I will support it however you would like to have the lead. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Cool! I'm actually going to leave it (the final report is going to be out soon anyway), but thanks for explaining what you meant. Chess  Eric  20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Absolutely pointless and against precedent to have it in there. United States Man (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ...okay. XD Chess  Eric  13:17, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion-Move to 2023 Rolling Fork-Midnight-Silver City tornado
The tornado caused damage in Midnight, and should be mentioned if already not. I also think the page should be moved so the title includes Midnight. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Generally the practice is to include the first and last locations affected, or the most significant. It's too cumbersome to list every single community struck, and Rolling Fork is the most important by far anyway. It's fine as is. Penitentes (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * When creating this article, I choose to do Rolling Fork and Silver City since both were incorporated communities (city and a town). Midnight is an unincorporated community. Like Penitentes said, it is typical to do the first and last community struck, which happened to be the only two incorporated communities struck by the tornado. So, the name is fine. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no need to change the title. It is fine the way it is. Chess  Eric  16:17, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. No reason to move the article. United States Man (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

GOCE copy edit
Excellent work. A few comments: voorts (talk/contributions) 02:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article gets a bit technical at times. An explanation of technical terms could be useful (see WP:ONEDOWN and MOS:JARGON), as could wikilinking to more terms.
 * Three sentences about a tweet seems UNDUE, particularly since there are no citations to secondary sources discussing the issue. It's also not related to "Storm development" (the section heading). Recommend deleting.
 * Add time frames (in UTC?) to the tornado summary.
 * I left a few clarify tags in the article.