User talk:WeatherWriter

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Re: FAC

Hi there WeatherWriter, I'm glad to be of assistance in helping you get a featured article.

• Immediately, I notice that the lead is too short.
• You say in the lead that Thomas P. Grazulis was a tornado expert, but you don't say his relationship to the information here. When did he assess these F ratings? In addition, the article reads as if it was told by Grazulis, since that's the first thing that I read after the lead. I would expect a section on meteorological synopsis.

There is 0 meteorological synopsis history on the event as far as I am aware (none from the U.S. Weather Bureau, NOAA, or Grazulis). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945." - is that true? The website most certainly wasn't in 1945.

The NWS website cited there, which exists in at least 2023/2024, does state those ratings for tornadoes in 1945. I do not know how else to phrase that, so any guidance on phrasing how the NWS (sometime since the Internet has existed) rated those tornadoes back in 1945 on the Fujita scale would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Why is there a sub-section for February 12 event, when all of the events were on the same day?

Standard process for tornado articles. We do that in modern-day events as well (Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024 is an example). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article is formatted like a list, but it's abstract in how it talks about some of the lesser significant events. Like, you say "The tornado started", "This brief intense tornado struck a cluster", and "The tornado destroyed". I'm being nitpicky here, but you came to me for my advice, and one of my main rules for writing is avoid using the passive voice. You used phrases like "A home was leveled", by what? If you want some variation to saying tornado, you could always say "twister". But you should least say something like "The tornado" did something

I will take a look at the article and see how to remove some of that passive voice. You are right though, I did use a lot of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• " The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others." - did the tornado kill 40 or 11?

They said 40 in a formal publication, then months later, said 11. That phrase is because the original official publication said that. Same idea as when NHC said Ian was Cat 4, then months later, Cat 5. The difference in this case though, is that the "40" was not preliminary, but the actual official release, which was later formally changed months later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• There should be a source at the bottom of the table for all of the events. Otherwise, where is the source for all of the tornado widths, F ratings, all that.

Just a question, do the sources for the summaries not count as that as the sources citing the tornado summaries are the sources for widths/deaths, ect...? I can certainly do that if you think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure if that would be considered overlinking to others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Are you sure about the number of railroad cars derailed? I came across this source after a quick Google search.

Wow, you just found a source discrepancy! Grazulis was the source for the number of train cars derailed, but that newspaper article says differently. I will add that information to the article tomorrow and note the difference in sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of sources, are you sure you've gotten as many sources as possible, and used as much useful information? As I noted earlier, there wasn't a meteorological synopsis.

See note earlier about that.

• "5 miles (8.0 km) " - why do you have 8.0? Your other usage of km doesn't have the .0

I actually have no idea and I have no idea how to fix that. It straight up is "{{convert|5|mi|km}}. Template being weird? Honestly, not sure. If you know how to fix that, please let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge." - that's three references to the cardinal direction. Maybe split it up a bit and add the time of day here? Also, the material you have in the second paragraph seems more appropriate for the first paragraph, like the length of the tornado path, and width.

Paragraph split was done by a GA reviewer last year when the article was up for GA. I would probably want someone else to mention the paragraph splitting before changing it, only due to the fact it was split to get to GA status. The cardinal direction thing though seems odd now that I think about it. Also there isn't a time of day listed. One thing I can say is this is a tornado from 1945 and the information about it is no where close to what NWS or NHC would produce in 2024 for tornadoes/tropical depressions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado leveled two government or U.S. army warehouses." - that seems a bit odd to be the second thing you mention in the section. I would think the first paragraph would be a summary, before getting into the impacts.

GA-reviewer split for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - who said this? You have a random quote in there without attributing it.

There is a citation immediately following the quote. I can add who stated the quote though (Associated Press with no direct author name), however, I am unsure the best way to state it. Maybe this?

"A freight train was also struck, where, according to the Dothan Eagle and Associated Press, 50 cars "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes".[3]"

Any thoughts about the wording for it before I add it to the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• For all of the fatalities in Montgomery, you don't really go into much detail about any of them. Were they all in people's houses?

The info about the fatalities was in this part: After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius. That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.

• You describe the tornado as "devastating" twice in the lead, but don't provide much context. Are tornadoes are in Alabama? Had Montgomery ever been hit by a tornado? Was this event the deadliest in its history?
• I see a lot here that could be potentially useful. Rich Thomas, the author, is also cited below, and in this random source
• This site says Montgomery County tornado deaths are rare, and that this event was indeed Montgomery County's deadliest, as well as other deadly events since then.

Added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: some information has been added based on your comments! I really thank you so much for the comments and I know you were being nit-picky on purpose. FAC's involve the nit-picky details. Hopefully I was able to explain some of them and I also left a few questions. Since your comment was more in a bullet-list format, I hope you don't mind that I replied individually to them under the bullet point. I really do thank you for the comments. One other thing: Would you care if I leave a transclude-link to this talk page discussion over on the FAC page? Before your reply, someone else had already commented on the FAC page, so trancluding this discussion over there would probably be useful. But, I wanted to ask before just doing it. Again, thank you for the comments and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to FA-status. (fingers crossed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please Don't Add This Photo To Sulphur

The photo that keeps getting added to the Sulphur section is NOT a confirmed photo of the Sulphur tornado. There actually isn't a single source saying it is from Sulphur, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is. The one you posted claims it was taken near the town of Byng, Oklahoma, and yet I found two more instances of the pic posted that same night, claiming to be from Ardmore, Oklahoma (shared below). If it was taken near Byng though, it would mean it is more likely a photo of the Holdenville EF3, as that town is closer to Byng than Sulphur. In any case, this all way too speculative for Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing where this photo was actually taken, and we shouldn't be having this issue to begin with, because we aren't supposed to pull random pics from social media that we cannot 100% verify. We can't just guess and hope we get it right, so stick with pics from the DAT or the NWS. We are going to get misattributed photos and false info published if we aren't more careful. Now if we find proof that this photo is from Sulphur, we can add it back, but for now it is a random unverifiable photo from social media that shouldn't have been added in the first place.

PROOF: 1.) https://twitter.com/dylantbrown/status/1784433337823621608 2.)https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 3.)https://twitter.com/NeckerZak/status/1784421774563631487

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Well can you speedy deletion request it then? Non-free media guidelines mean the image must be used on an article. Also you are right that it isn't the confirmed EF3 photo, as SW of Byng (per RS media/NWS surveys) had an EF1 and the EF3. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure I'll take care of it now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12