Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tornado/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009 [1].

Tornado[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Toolbox
Notified: Runningonbrains, Evolauxia, WikiProject Severe weather

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a bunch of unsourced information here and there are too many stubby sections.John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Outbreak Map.PNG is not from the NOAA. It is labelled as coming from the University of Chicago. NOAA use the image, but image copyrights do not automatically transfer to the user. I've nominated it for deletion.[2] Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Struck 08:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a higher-resolution version from a source which is clearly public domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this one. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has been 11 days now and not since october 12 has there been any edits. I think it is obvious that there will not be much effort to improve the article. John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would point me to a some phrases you think need sourced, I would be more than happy to look for sources. As for stubby sections, I don't see how they can be improved when most of them discuss topics with an article of their own and are marked as such. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting to work on this article, but I would appreciate some additional criticism other than generic sourcing concerns. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the "stub sections" concern, this is a gigantic topic with many, many forked articles according to Wikipedia:Summary style, and I see no problem with a short section linking to a main article.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and stub sections (2b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I appreciate it might be hard to avoid, the stub section issue is a fair point. The article is quite visually distracting in places. Marskell (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed:

  • The article is "Tornado" but there is a section "Tornado": see WP:MSH.
  • Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in several places.
  • Apparent incorrect use of the {{main}} template: it is used when this article summarizes another article using WP:SS. If that's not the case, a different template should be used.
    • I do not understand this criticism. All uses of {{main}} are at the head of a section summarizing the linked article, as far as I can see. Can you cite specific examples where it is used incorrectly? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I have resolved this problem, by substituting see also templates with some of the main article templates previously within the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon unexplained or wikilinking lacking: example, cumuliform cloud.
  • Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS: samples in "Tornado-like circulations" section.
    • Fixed. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is still incorrect use of italics throughout, for example .. everywhere. See WP:ITALICS and the list moved to the titles sub-article of Italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad...I fixed the one below this. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quotes need to be fixed: example, or an irregular sound of “noise”.
  • External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL
    • I have pruned the external link section to a more reasonable size. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Further reading not be alphabetical?
  • Do all of those redlinked authors in citation really meet notability guidelines?
    • I removed the non-notable redlinks. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also section is a problem and needs pruning or incorporation into the article (see WP:LAYOUT, and Sister links belong in External links.
  • Red links are fine in an article, except when the fact that the link is red makes this article have undefined terms. For example, this term needs to be either defined, or the redlink filled in: Other rich areas of research are tornadoes associated with mesovortices within ...
    • Took me forever, but found a reference, created a wiktionary page for the term, and linked the redlink to said page. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See alsos used in this manner is poor practice and poor prose: ... susceptible than others.[22][80][81] (See Tornado climatology). ... and ... bad shelter during tornadoes (see next section).
  • The number of short, stubby sections indicate better organization of the TOC may be warranted.

That's as far as I got on a quick flyover, but more work is needed to bring this article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe all these concerns have been addressed. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck items completed.
      • Main and See also templates are used inconsistently: some are uppercase, others are not.
      • WP:NBSP check needed, I left sample edits.
      • I'll check linking and jargon on my next pass through, after other editors are finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still far too much going on here to list it all, or for this to be in Keep territory. I suggest you might ping in Juliancolton (talk · contribs), Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) and Titoxd (talk · contribs) for a look and some help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Juliancolton knows of this I should think, as he made a comment above...I have, however, just left a generic note on the other's talk pages (just the FAR notification template and a section header saying SandyGeorgia recommended they be contacted). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some overhauling last month, but haven't kept up with this, sorry. I'll do some more this weekend. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)See, here we have the fundamental flaw of this process. People say "This article isn't up to standard", but don't give enough information for people like me to actually fix it. I've written a large portion of this article, so I'm not in a very good position to proofread; I see very few problems with the article as it stands right now. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already left one extensive (first pass) list, but there is still just as much to be done. The quickest way forward is to get experienced weather editors on board; then the rest of us can go through afterwards and see what's left. I'm not on for another long list until some of the weather editors have run through; after that, I'll be glad to have another look. Thanks for the work so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do on this one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple comments. The lead doesn't summarize the article below, and appears too short, requiring expansion. For example, there appears to be no information from sections 3, 5, and 8 within the lead. A line concerning each would help out greatly. You can tell this article passed GA and FA before the current standards were in place. I'm not sure (lead-wise) the article would pass GA right now. Reference-wise, the name order within references 16, 23, 29, and 50 do not fit the pattern used in the rest of the article. Consistency in referencing, with use of the various cite templates, is required for FA last I checked. And yeah, I was one of the editors of this article three years ago before it was GANed; even then I was concerned it wouldn't pass. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in citation formatting is required; citation templates are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I believe I solved the name order issue, but there may be other issues with the ref section. A fresh eye should take a look to see if there are any other reference issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles listed in "See also" suggest that this article is not yet comprehensive; some of those articles appear to contain content that should somehow be mentioned or linked or discussed in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears referencing and wording (both jargon and encyclopedia-style) are the remaining items to address. I'm making an effort to address both issues. If there are others, please mention them. The other items above appear to have been addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other tornado-like phenomena which exist in nature include the gustnado, dust devil, fire whirls, and steam devil. - all of those terms should be linked.
  • Tornadoes are detected through the use of storm spotters and weather radar, though the use of velocity data and reflectivity patterns such as a hook echo. - isn't Doppler radar required for wind vector information?
    • Yes, but doppler radar is a type of weather radar, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but I think that we could be more specific about the kind of radar without making the article unnecessarily complicated, at least in that sentence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like how the sentence was split as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doppler radar is not necessary to detect the presence of a tornado in all cases...hence the mention of the hook echo ...I liked it the way it was.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fujita scale and the Enhanced Fujita Scale rate tornadoes by damage caused. - some temporal frame of reference would be nice. When was EFS introduced?
    • Dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd recommend a rewording of the sentence: Between 1971 and 2007, the Fujita scale rated tornadoes by damage caused... in 2007, the Fujita scale was replaced with the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Also, if you capitalize EFS when spelled out, should "Fujita scale" be capitalized as well? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is where the situation gets complicated beyond the scope of a summary article: The EF scale has only replaced the F scale in certain countries, such as the US and apparently France (though they have been inconsistent). Also, there's the TORRO scale, still in use in the UK. I think I've summarized it as best can be done without being too verbose. Also, regarding capitalization, I know I've posted this somewhere else in the past, but can't remember where: Enhanced Fujita Scale is capitalized in every official document I could find, but Fujita scale seemed to be alternately capitalized and uncapitalized, with no discernible preference.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AMS Glossary of Meteorology points out that tornadoes produce "the most intense of all atmospheric circulations.[3]" Why is this buried two-thirds of the way down the article in the Extremes section? (And it is mentioned in a very roundabout way there, too.)
    • Dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, although I'm not sure whether the way that is worded (The most intense of all atmospheric phenomena) is too technical. Sandy? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm getting too old to spot the difference between jargon and regular words :-D -RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, #Types should come after #Life cycle. In fact, Life cycle should be brought up several sections. The article would make more sense if terms such as mesocyclone and RFD were explained before being used.
  • Most significant tornadoes form under the storm's rain-free base, or the area under the thunderstorm's updraft, where there is little or no rain, making them visible. - add a ref for this, please. It might be more accurate to call it the updraft base, though, per SPC/NWS Norman's recommendation.[4]
    • See if that works for you. Thanks for the link/ref. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tornadoes emit on the electromagnetic spectrum, for example, with sferics and E-field effects detected. Little is yet understood, however. - the grammar here is weird.
  • For example, on June 24, 2003 near Manchester, South Dakota, a probe measured a 100 mbar (hPa) (2.95 inHg) pressure deficit. - pressure deficit? Huh?
    • Changed to pressure decrease, which should be easier to understand. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm is contracting into a rope-like tube and, like the ice skater who pulls her arms in to spin faster, winds can increase at this point. - conservation of angular momentum, anyone? Needs a reference as well.
    • I believe I just solved this problem in a different section of the article. I can add a new ref for it though. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just copy the reference, since the article is large enough that the references might be hard to find otherwise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Enhanced Fujita Scale was an upgrade to the older Fujita scale, with engineered (by expert elicitation) wind estimates and better damage descriptions, but was designed so that a tornado rated on the Fujita scale would receive the same numerical rating. - it almost sounded like the elicitation clause was tacked on at the end. Rewrite this part.
  • Doppler radar data, photogrammetry, and ground swirl patterns (cycloidal marks) may also be analyzed to determine intensity and award a rating. - while I know this is true, a reference wouldn't hurt.
    • Still outstanding. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've run out of time and won't be able to resolve this issue. If it's still a problem in mid-December, I'll be able to help. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having trouble finding a reference for the ground swirl and photogrammerty, although I also know it to be true...I did, however, find a reference of the radar measurement part. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This area extends into Canada, particularly Ontario and the Prairie Provinces. Strong tornadoes also occur in northern Mexico. - MOAR REFS
  • I'm honestly not sure what to do with the [clarification needed] request in the climatology section, so unless someone else brings something up, just kill it.
    • I do, since I tagged it a while back. That line isn't quite right. In the US, tornado formation gets suppressed to more southern latitudes such as the gulf coast/Florida during winter. In the US numbers decline, but this may not be true in other countries/areas of the world, so the line has been removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tornadoes are focused in the right poleward section of landfalling tropical cyclones, which tend to occur in the late summer and autumn. - while I can see how this would be true in storms with a south->north landfall vector, is this true for east->west landfalling storms? Would it be more accurate to say that tornadoes form in the right-front quadrant, or would the right poleward quadrant still be more precise?
    • Making the change. Poleward wasn't the right wording in this circumstance. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A picture of a hook echo would come in handy in the Detection section, alongside the vortex signature pic.
    • I put in a radar loop that has both, but I'm not sure if it works better or not. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of Storm spotting needs references. Also useful might be the cross section of the WSR-88 precipitation mode scan pattern[5], since you mentioned it. Link tornadogenesis in the paragraph as well (or just call it tornado formation...).
    • Added references and moved a couple lines (surprise) to the radar section. Tornadogenesis is already linked in a section above...you sure it should be linked to again? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of Visual evidence essentially regurgitates the Life cycle section. I'm not sure if this is by design, but I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary to maintain two copies of the same thing...
    • The only duplication I'm seeing regards funnel cloud information. The other structures described visually don't appear to be repeated in the section above. In general, this section does appear to add to the article with minimal duplication. The second opinion would be good here. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter half is not as repetitive, true, and I guess since you do need to bring back context, the repetition is unavoidable. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also the second costliest tornado in history at the time, but has been surpassed by several others non-normalized. - grammar parser syntax error: expression does not compile
    • I believe I understand what the author of that line meant. Damage normalization is done by accounting for population changes over time within a specified area. See if my rewording has led to sufficient improvement of the sentence. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This outbreak had a staggering sixteen tornadoes on the ground at the same time at the peak of the outbreak. - zOMG!!!!1! No need to get excited and lose the encyclopedic tone there, though...
    • Changed wording to make more encyclopedic. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, although I'd like a second opinion on the whole paragraph's tone. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The breathtaking and menacing prose of the most dangerous paragraph in the history of mankind has been eliminated, once and for all! Thegreatdr (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highest wind speed ever measured in a tornado, which is also the highest wind speed ever recorded on the planet, is 301 ± 20 mph (484 ± 32 km/h) in the F5 Moore, Oklahoma tornado. When? Also, this contradicts what is written in the Doppler on Wheels article (the strongest tornado being in Bridgecreek), so one or both articles need to be fixed.
    • It depends on your perspective. The tornado is known as the Moore F5, but the winds were measured as the tornado was passing through Bridgecreek. Which would be more appropriate? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both. There is no way a reader without previous knowledge of tornadic records would know such a thing. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since 1999_Oklahoma_tornado_outbreak calls it the "Bridge Creek-Moore Tornado", I'd change it to something similar. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, and linked to the outbreak page's section on that tornado. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The link to the outbreak also helps clarify things, thanks. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highway overpasses are extremely bad shelter during tornadoes. - grammar again
  • Ongoing research looks... unresearched. Add references throughout.
    • Numerous references have been added, which has led to a rewording of one of that section's sentences. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's left

Main problem which remains appears to be referencing of the research section, which is ironic, but there it is. We also may still have an issue with the wording (too technical or jargony), but I'm not going to be of much use there either in its identification or fixing, since I've been steeped in the technical wording for nearly 20 years between college and professional life. Nearly all the other comments made by Sandy and Tito have either been responded to or apparently fixed. It is up to those commentators to strike out what they feel has been addressed, so we have a better idea of what is left to do otherwise. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Titoxd is satisfied, I am. But I still see inconsistent capitalization in hatnotes, for example
  • See also: funnel cloud ...versus ...
  • See also: Supercell
Please pick one and be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So.....I'm not sure, but I think all the concerns have been addressed. Anyone move for closure? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, I'm happy now. What's remaining is at most minor prose massaging, but content issues are resolved. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left some sample edits of minor issues; some of the citation templates are used incorrectly, and I saw a bit of overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think ive sorted all citation templates out now.Jason Rees (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another stab and minimizing duplicate wikilinks, outside the ref section. Does the overlink comment apply to the ref section as well? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Tornado/archive1&oldid=1136094403"