Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/February 2009 tornado outbreak/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:32, 22 September 2009.

February 2009 tornado outbreak

 * Nominator(s): Showtime2009 (talk), Cyclonebiskit (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that the article meets the FA criteria. It is well-written and documents one of the most notable severe weather events of 2009.Showtime2009 (talk) 14:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Images are fine; they were checked last FAC and no new images have been introduced since then. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources The following source issues were raised last FAC and have not been resolved.
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.southcentralgolf.com/index.php?option=com_recentnews&id=1523&Itemid=622
 * Mentioned by the Wichita Eagle.
 * Being mentioned ≠ reliability. The article was just sending birthday wishes to a writer for the magazine. A better indicator of reliability would be if a major news site used the magazine as a source. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here the California State University Northridge site uses it as a source.
 * Leaving this out for other reviewers to comment on. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot find it on the CSUNorthridge site...even looking through the archives quickly.  The Wichita Eagle citation seems to have disappeared.  I'd say, though, that actually the south central golf.com site was fine; it is an on-site source, reporting from the local course, and there are pictures.  And it is specifically documenting the damage to that particular country club, providing supporting (collateral) documentation, but not a key point of the article. If it were being used to document the primary damage to a large part of a town, or something like that, no, but as it is, the sentence is only limiting its usefulness to that particular space.  No news agency would pick it up, since it's a few acres of damage among thousands.  I'm okay with it.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=2387
 * Its the the official newsmagazine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
 * For the purposes of what's being cited, this should be fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2009/02/11/wicked-winds-torrential-rain-batter-clarksville-downed-trees-structural-damage-power-outages-reported/
 * Mentioned by Florida International University.
 * The link you provided doesn't work. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed source with Storm Prediction Center link.


 * In addition, http://edmondok.com/news/pressreleases/tornado09 deadlinks.
 * Fixed. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments - Prose-wise.
 * link to Tornado outbreak
 * By 2:14 pm CST (2014 UTC), it was beginning to develop a hook echo, and the hook echo was fully developed four minutes later.  - wordy
 * By 2:14 pm CST (2014 UTC), it formed a hook echo, which was fully developed four minutes later.


 * It continued showing signs of rotation on Doppler weather radar as it moved northeast across Oklahoma County. - continued to show
 * Done


 * At 2:52 pm CST (2052 UTC), the supercell produced its second tornado near Edmond and moved into neighborhoods and subdivisions on the northwestern side of Edmond, produced its most severe damage near the Oklahoma and Logan County line. - grammar
 * At 2:52 pm CST (2052 UTC), the supercell produced its second tornado that moved into neighborhoods and subdivisions on the northwestern side of Edmond. It caused its most severe damage near the Oklahoma and Logan County line.


 * I did not read over the confirmed tornadoes section.
 * At 6:48 pm CST (0048 UTC), a large wedge tornado touched down near the Red River.[5] - I know what this is, but the general reader wouldn't - Remember to explain jargon, with either a link (in this case it's a redirect) or a parenthetical explanation
 * Done.


 * Damage was extensive in the community. Buildings were reported to have been thrown off their slabs, the local chamber of commerce office was flattened, a furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.[44] - End is redundant, watch out for redundancy, plz
 * Damage was extensive in the community. Buildings were reported to have been thrown off their slabs and the local chamber of commerce office was flattened. A furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed.

One of the mobile home parks contained 40 homes.
 * One of which, Bar K, contained 40 homes.[48]  - Grammar
 * The UPS building was also damaged[44] with its glass lobby being destroyed.[48]  - Remove with; there should be a comma between the two phrases
 * Done


 * Eight people were confirmed dead,[56] though early reports suggested that as many as 15 people were killed as a result of the tornado.[57] ' - Again, redundant, it's obvious'' that they were from the tornado
 * Removed as a result of the tornado.


 * The eighth fatality occurred when a truck driver was pinned under his vehicle on Interstate 35.[48] - Suggest you move to end of section, after the pickup truck sentence
 * Done


 * Allegheny Power stated that the loss of power due to this system was the largest ever experienced by the company. -cite?
 * Ref 69. Showtime2009 (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, that's from a quick, detailed read-over.  ceran  thor 21:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - On prose only.  ceran  thor 11:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. 04:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Showtime2009 (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding some alt text. There are some issues, though:
 * Three images still lack it . Click on the "alt text" button at the upper right of this review page.
 * The alt text that is present is almost entirely a repetition of the caption. However, alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption. Instead, it's supposed to describe visual aspects of the image that are not present in the caption. See WP:ALT .
 * Eubulides (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok look at it now. Showtime2009 (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Considerably better, but I'm afraid it still needs work.
 * Several phrases focus too much on superficial detail and not enough on the essence of the useful info that the image conveys to the sighted reader, and their alt text nees to be rewritten as per WP:ALT. These phrases include "A Green oval outlines the area under a", "the red oval", "The area where the colors are a dark orange and red", "line of darker orange and red colors show the severe thunderstorms", "Darker orange and red area on the radar shows the severe thunderstorm", "Darker colors near the thunderstorm's hook echo show the location of tornado", "Track, time and location of the Lone Grove tornado". Where was the tornado? The visually impaired reader would like to know.
 * The maps and satellite images typically have alt text that don't tell the visually impaired reader the useful info in those images. See WP:ALT.
 * Some phrases can't be verifiable just from the image, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT. These include "indicate the supercell.", "the Lone Grove tornado"; pretty much all proper names.
 * The lead image (in the infobox) still lacks alt text.
 * Eubulides (talk) 07:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Any better? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Better, but I'm afraid it still needs some work. The main problem is that the map alt text does not convey the essence of the map's info to the visually impaired reader; please see WP:ALT. Here are some of the instances I found:
 * "A map of the United States with a series of colored lines depicting thunderstorm forecasts." doesn't convey enough useful information to the visually impaired reader. The only useful info is that it forecasts U.S. thunderstorms. But the point of that map is that the MDT region is in Arkansas, NE Texas, and SE Oklahoma, etc. The "colored lines" is relatively useless info and should be removed. Again, please see WP:ALT. (Also, interestingly enough, that map does not say that it is about thunderstorms and thus the alt text shouldn't say "thunderstorm".)
 * "A map depicting the tracks, times, and locations of tornadoes." has a similar problem. It says very little that's not already in the caption. Please pretend you're trying to tell somebody over the telephone the useful info that the map conveys.
 * There are similar problems with "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A map depicting the track, time and location of a tornado.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms.", "A weather map in which lines of darker orange and red colors depict thunderstorms." The last three entries are nearly identical, which would lead the blind reader to incorrectly assume that the three images are identical. Please describe the gist of how they differ.
 * Also, a minor point: Appending a period to "A tornado close to some buildings" is just the opposite of what WP:ALT suggests. Eubulides (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - This is a brillianty written article with nice images as well as being well-doucmented on the subject. John Asfukzenski (talk) 18:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * John, please comment on the queried sources above, thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well after looking at it, the institution clearly shows it's getting its info from the south central golf website. I believe it makes it reliable. John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. It looks thorough enough, but I found plenty of prose issues just on reading the lead and one random section. A skilled copy editor needs to go through the whole thing to remedy simple grammar issues and excessive wordiness. Some examples follow; use them as a guide to fix the whole article with a helper.
 * I don't have a problem with the use of the South Central Golf site. I wouldn't depend on it for any data, but it only backs up one sentence about damage to the golf club.
 * I ran into a bunch of prose oddities early on. Examples:
 * In the first sentence, moving "primarily" to the right is going to bring you closer to your intended meaning. It didn't "primarily affect", it affected primarily (something), right?
 * "During the ... span" is odd usage. Usually, in the span, or during the period.
 * "proved to be the most active regarding tornadoes" Ick. "proved to produce the most tornadoes"? Something.
 * "while the second brought mainly high wind damage" There you've got it correct where the first sentence got it wrong.
 * "A moist low-level air mass moved to the north" Why not just "moved north"?
 * "Daytime heating of the moistening boundary layer increased through the afternoon across Oklahoma and Texas and combined with cooling aloft in conjunction with the approaching storm system, the air mass began to destabilized, which resulted in conditions supportive of thunderstorm development." This is a run-on sentence.
 * "A strong wind field, increasing with height" What does "increasing with height" mean? Do you mean in height?
 * "The risk of tornadoes was down" The risk was lower, surely.
 * "It killed eight people and injured 46 others, as well as destroy 114 residences in Lone Grove." Tense agreement.
 * I dug into another random section, Lone Grove tornado, and quickly found other problems:
 * Overlinking (mobile home, red link to "chamber of commerce office", etc.)
 * "A furniture store was destroyed and two mobile home parks were also destroyed." Why not just "A furniture store and two mobile home parks were destroyed."? This is an example of wordiness that needs remedying throughout.
 * Logic problem: "All 40 of the homes were completely destroyed by the tornado, leaving about 100 people homeless. Some mobile homes were completely destroyed ..." Well which is it? All or some?
 * A lot of work needed. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey i fixed the suggestions. What else is needed? Showtime2009 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The alt text still isn't fixed. See my comment of 08:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) above. Eubulides (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Showtime2009, please re-read my opening statement of opposition. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Support Interesting article, nicely illustrated, and informative. In terms of prose, it needs a serious copy edit. It is overly wordy or redundant. The passive verbs don't help it either. There are many misplaced modifiers, which creates confusion in the text. Andy's "list" is only gives examples of the types of problems, so fixing each of the specific instances won't solve the larger prose issue. I can help you fix the prose, but you have to deal with Eubulides issues, and the other issues on images and sourcing. If you want me to help with the prose, drop me a line and I'll do it tomorrow. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sourcing issues (in terms of reliability and formatting) seem to be mostly OK, although your opinion on the unstruck source comment above would be appreciated. Dabomb87

(talk) 23:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a note above. It's a minor point in a secondary point, and the author has limited the citation to a single sentence linked to the article, so I think it's okay.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * showtime, I did some editing, smoothed out some of the redundancies (big time repetition between lead and synopsis). You need to check, though, to make sure I didn't wreck your citations.  Also, you're missing one, and I noted it for you with a template. Very interesting article.  When the citations are checked, bing me, and I will review once more, then I expect to support.  The other thing that should happen:  the section on non-tornadic events needs to be reorganized, from various paragraphs citing damages in whatever state to some kind of geographic organization.  I started it -- Oklahoma, Texas, then I think the Central Mississippi Valley, Iowa, Illinois, etc.  There shouldn't be a couple of sentences about wind damage in Maryland tacked on to the paragraph about wind damage in Michigan, unless you want to subhead it as what was happened at the extreme edges of the storm front.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Prose-wise, the article flows better. The section on the non-tornadic events needs reorganization into something resembling either a time line or geographic events (Mississippi valley, Ohio valley, New England, etc.). As it stands, it is a chaotic combination of data on various states that has no organization.It rained in Michigan, heavy winds in Maryland, it rained in New Jersey, snow in Massachusetts, wind in Tennessee...etc. I've removed the redundancy of lead and synopsis, but the editors should check it for "science." I would say, though, that unless that big section isn't reorganized into heading/subheading, it is not passable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments the editor did add headings into the non-tornadic events section, but did nothing to organize the material better, or to explain the organization s/he had. I've moved some of the text so that the header and the material go together, but the addition of the headers was not done with any apparent logic (i.e., timeline, as in the events struck at the same time along a squall line that stretched from northern Michigan through West Virginia and Virginia, or geographically, as in western PA, Mid Atlantic, etc.). I'm not sure that my adjustments were correct on this. Thanks. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * please check the non-tornadic events section and make sure it is organized CLEARLY either in the timeline or geographically, and that which ever one you chose to use is explained.
 * please break the non-tornadic events section into EITHER a timeline with subheadings or a geographic section, which requires moving text.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.