Talk:February 2009 North American storm complex

Lone Grove Track Length
I found a source from NWS Norman stating the approximate track length of the Lone Grove tornado. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/wxevents/20090210/tornadotable.php --Bigphishy56 (talk) 13:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Todo
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Expand the lead.
 * Try to avoid excessive sourcing, if possible
 * Include the Northeast U.S. precipitation in the non-tornadic events section.
 * You know things are good when people bring up excessive sourcing. I haven't seen that type of comment in ages.  =)  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Something is missing here
First, good news. It is a well-referenced article with no stubby sections. However, I'm having problems with the non-tornadic events section, which seems to be missing a section/paragraph which explains the cause of the non-tornadic (severe?) events themselves. If these events are due to a squall line, explain the motion/movement of the squall line which caused this damage. If it was merely due to gradient winds from a strong extratropical cyclone, say so. Either way, the non-tornadic events don't seem to be listed in sequence, and they jump around the eastern United States haphazardly. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be useful ;) I'll see what I can do later today in regards to the cause of the winds. As for the jumping around states, what order should they be put in? Cyclonebiskit 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we're dealing with a system in the westerlies, from west to east is likely the best option. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've attempted to make a reasonable summary of the cause of the winds and some feedback on it would be helpful. Cyclonebiskit 22:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. When you say "a bow echo north of the squall line," do you mean on the northern portion of the squall line?  It would be rare indeed if a severe thunderstorm formed in the immediate wake of a squall line, where the atmosphere is a bit more stable.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that you should WebCite the severe thunderstorm/tornado watch pages from the NWS, because they will disappear after the year. Showtime2009 (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I thought since they're archived I wouldn't have to webcite them. Cyclonebiskit 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah; for example, this year's watch #0021 will be replaced by next year's watch #0021. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't, it says there's a no cache tag on it. I'll just replace them with the yearly archived watches in January. Cyclonebiskit 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, they do archive them, so you do not have to webcite them. my apologies. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've taken a shot at reorganizing the non-tornadic events section per your suggestion DR. To make it easier, I'll just list the order they're in here to see if it sounds right. Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Cyclonebiskit 15:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds good. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How much information should there be for each state? Texas almost has its own paragraph while Indiana and Illinois share a short sentence. Cyclonebiskit 15:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

info
There is too much info regarding some of these tornadoes. We dont need to know what its wind speed or if it was recorded by a tv station or how much it cost. Can we not stick to what was damaged? Showtime2009 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I put the edmond tornado into a separate section because of that at first but since I couldn't find much more, it didn't really warrant a section but I'm quite confused as to why we can't have a full summary on all the tornadoes in the outbreak and not just the most significant ones. Although they might not kill anyone, they do cause some damage and the people they affect might regard them as the worst tornado they've ever experienced. I'll put the Edmond tornado into its own section again if more information presents itself, otherwise it's probably best to keep it where it is. All in all, in my opinion, it's best to fully cover the subject instead of skimping out on details. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You might as well give it its own section again. There is once again too much information for the infobox and now it looks disproportionate. Not to mention too many sources. Again we just need damage info and not other stuff. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Giving an overview of the tornado, IMO, is helpful, rather than just saying "Tornado X destroyed Y". Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Then you might as well just give it its own section back. The infoboxes have always been used to state the damage and nothing else. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of a response from Cyclonebiskit, I will condense parts of this article in the near future. Showtime2009 (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to respond here. I very much disagree with removing useful information from this article to make it "what you think the article should be". The article should fully cover the subject and not skimp out on details. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, we'll keep it the way it is then. Showtime2009 (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Table
Since all the information is now in, the table should probably look something like this. Thoughts?


 * C/P'd this table into the article, thanks for fixing it up. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I made an error. Because the stats for the Lone Grove tornado show it only going through three counties, i forgot to revise the path length. It should be 35 miles.

Also regarding text in the article about the tornado ending at 8:00. It should be revised to note that it ended at 7:43 and probably the image of the preliminary track should be removed. Showtime2009 (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

bad references
The following references do not support the claims in this articule. Can someone check/update/remove them? Matthew C. Clarke 01:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Alt text review
I was asked to review this article's alt text. It looks pretty good; I particularly liked the description of the tornado. However, the last two maps need work. Alt text for a map should convey the gist of the useful information conveyed by the map, rather than focus on unimportant details such as the false colors used (please see WP:ALT). So, the alt text for File:Tornado Watch 10 2009.gif should focus on that strikingly intense straight line of thunderstorms running north-northeast from San Antonio to southwest Missouri, and the alt text for File:02102009 1.radarloop Mineola tornado.gif should cover the striking pattern of an amorphous region moving west and a bit north through the map. Since neither map has a legend that says "thunderstorm" the alt text should not say "thunderstorm"; instead, that sort of interpretation should be in the caption (please see WP:ALT). Eubulides (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt text for the two maps looks better now; I the latter. Eubulides (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Peer review comments
Ruhrfisch comments: I will review this as I would at FAC, here are some suggestions for improvement.
 * First some general comments - there are several places where units need to be converted to metric - for example in the lead there is ... causing wind and water damage, and dumping six inches of snow in central and eastern Massachusetts. or in the Long Grove tornado section there is Two of the victims, the parents of a 13-year old girl, were killed when the tornado picked the three of them out of their home and threw them 400 feet.[57] as well as One mobile home was thrown 100 yards from its foundation.[51] (This is not a complete list)
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thing that FAC requires is that all the little details are taken care of and things to be done consistently. So for example in the Spanish Fort area tornado in the table, miles per hour is spelled out Winds within the tornado were estimated at 95 to 100 miles per hour (153 to 160 km/h). but the rest of the article uses mph (for example the very mext tornado in the table The maximum width of the tornado was estimated to be 100 yd (91 m) with winds up to 90 mph (140 km/h).
 * Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This might be a WikiProject guideline, but the WP:MOS says In the main text, give the main units as words and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in round brackets....However, where there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence.
 * Is it "mid-west" as in This squall line continued to renew its energy as it passed through the mid-west, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England,... or "Midwest" as in The warning included parts of the Deep South, Ohio Valley, Midwest, and Appalachians.
 * ✅ Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The article covers a lot of geography and there are places where it would help to be clearer which state is being discussed. For example in the Storm development section, the paragraph on the Lone Grove tornado never says it was in Oklahoma. I know it says the state in the lead, but here the previous paragraph ends with tornados in three states In addition to the five Oklahoma tornadoes, three tornadoes struck northern sections of Texas and one tornado hit Springfield, Missouri.[6][7] then follows this with the somewhat vague paragraph starting The most significant tornado, eventually called the Lone Grove Tornado, first touched down in southeast Jefferson County at 6:48 pm CST (00:48 UTC) near the Red River.[5]''
 * ✅ I think Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The external link checker shows several dead links.
 * Irreplaceable links tagged and replaceable replaced, so ✅. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The language is not bad, but it tends to be a little choppy and it doesn't flow as well as it could in many places. I will pick one paragraph as an example.
 * The tornado left devastation across a swath over a half-mile wide. Buildings were reportedly thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. A furniture store and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.[45] One of the mobile home parks contained 40 homes, leaving close to 100 people homeless.[49][50] One mobile home was thrown 100 yards from its foundation.[51] The glass lobby of the UPS building was shattered.[45][49] A total of 114 residences were destroyed by the tornado in Lone Grove.[52]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * First sentence - needs conversion factor for half-mile. Also the length of the tornado's path (35 miles (56 km)) is given two paragraphs previously. These two pieces of information seem to me like they belong together. For the rest of the paragraph - it is often useful to go from the general to the specific. If that were the case, I think I would start with the 114 residences destroyed in Lone Grove, then give specifics. The next item could probably be the two mobile home parks destroyed, one of which contained 40 homes and left 100 homeless. Then the mobile home being thrown 100 yards (spell out and conversion needed) could be next (most specific). A nice transition to the next part might be the sentence Buildings were reportedly thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. I might say something like "Throughout Lone Grove buildings were thrown off their slabs; the local chamber of commerce office was flattened.'' instead. Then the commercial damage could follow - I think I would take the furniture store out of the mobile home parks sentence and put it with other commerical items.
 * Another place where this approcach would help is in the Aftermath section - part of this is also providing context for the reader - see WP:PCR. So for example in this part of the section  A concert featuring Chris Cagle and other local musicians at Heritage Hall in Ardmore raised over $18,000 to benefit Carter County tornado victims.[133][134] Another concert set up by the Salvation Army raised $2,300 more for victims.[134] The Department of Homeland Security offered to assist with the reconstruction of homes and businesses and to support those who were left homeless. President Barack Obama passed along his condolences and best wishes to the victims of the tornado.[127] the first sentence's sources date it to March 13-16, well after the tornado. The second sentence is March 16. The next two sentences are February 11. I can see grouping the federal repsonses together in a paragraph, or doing it chronologically, but this way makes little sense to me.
 * When I looked at current ref 127 to see the date, I read it. The article says tornado warnings were issued 35 minutes ahead of the tornado in Lone Grove and that people did not seek shleter, perhaps why at least some of the fatalities occurred. I did not see this in the article, but it seems worthy of inclusion.
 * I would get a copyedit - there are volunteers at WP:PR/V that will help with this.

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:April 1880 tornado outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of February 10–11, 2009 → February 2009 North American storm complex – The non tornado effects have about as much coverage in the article as the tornadic ones, and same for impact. This is a more neutral title that recognizes both equally. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.