Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 03:21, 22 January 2025

2007 Greensburg tornado

2007 Greensburg tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/2007 Greensburg tornado/archive1

Nominator(s): E_F 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the massive EF5-rated tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas on the night of May 4, 2007. The tornado directly hit he town, damaging 95% of the buildings within city limits to some degree and killing eleven people. Meetsall criteria, passed a DYK that was recently featured and GA, so trying my luck at probably only the third individual tornado FAC ever. Also successfully nommed an FP for the tornado, which can be found in the infobox. E_F 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Departure–

Glad to see this passed GA! I'll give a bit of constructive criticism:

• Is the GT name really relevant if it was only used in studies?

I'd say yes, because that's what it's officially named as in NWS-led and other papers. E_F 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, destroyed in the tornado," change to "which was destroyed in the tornado"

Done. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "As of 2024, the tornado is the most recent to receive an EF5 rating in Kansas" I don't really see this being relevant - it's the only EF5 in Kansas. This should be replaced with maybe more from earlier in the lede about how it was the first EF5 tornado, which would go better here.

Done. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "the 2 miles (3.2 km) width estimate from the 1896 Seneca–Oneida tornado is considered unofficial" - in the text body, this sentence is entirely uncited, and is the rating unofficial at all? I'm less than convinced.

Done, removed. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Meteorological synopsis: wasn't it a high risk day? The body only mentions a moderate risk.

The high risk was for May 5, the day after the tornado. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Shortly after this circulation was first found" swap "found" with "detected" or some variant, ideally.

Done, E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Several storm chasers captured the formation of a tornado south of Greensburg around 9:20 pm CDT, which apparently strengthened as it neared Greensburg and began moving due-north towards the town, and at 9:38 pm CDT, storm chasers reported that it had grown to over 0.5 miles (0.80 km) in diameter. Eyewitnesses and storm chasers reported that multiple vortices were circulating around the perimeter of the large, wedge-shaped tornado during its early stages. A short time later, at least two distinct satellite tornadoes, including a narrow rope tornado, were reported by local media and observed by multiple weather spotters and storm chasers." Source doesn't back this up at all - no ctrl+f hits for "rope". "satellite", or "chaser", nor anything regarding multi-vortex structure.

Done, changed reference to a research paper. E_F 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Would the tornado emergency text go better on WikiSource than here? The first half is boilerplate anyway.

Done, removed. E_F 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• Inline damage photos either in the summary or damage section would be great, especially when the school being hit is mentioned in the text but the swimming pool isn't.

Done, I've added three new images and removed the Bush one since it's not really relevant. E_F 14:49, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, but I'd really like a better source than the Cincinnati Enquirer for the satellite tornadoes.

Done, the research paper also backs up the tornadoes. CE should be reliable as it's stripped from the NWS. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• The Trousdale section should probably be given a mention in the final paragraph of the Greensburg tornado's summary, i.e. "the tornado then caused a wide tornado near Trousdale. It broke some records for Kansas.

Done. E_F 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in the DYK review, but why is Blagojevich given more spotlight than George W Bush? All Bush gets is an image and one sentence, where Blagojevich, who isn't even from Kansas, gets a whole quote.

Bush just said a few words, none were of long-term significance. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado was the first in over 50 years to kill at least one person in Kiowa County." Is this really needed? Tornadoes aren't rare enough in these United States in my opinion. Killer tornadoes tend to be both unsurprising and uncommon at once.

Over 50 years? Seems suprising to me, especially for Kansas. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Depiction in media: There was another here you removed in the GAN. Can you find it with a better source than IMDB?

I cannot, hence why I removed it. E_F 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The article came from nothing a month or so ago and is already pretty darn good. You've done great here, EF5. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Departure–: How's it look now? E_F 17:53, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Definitely better. I'd remove Blagojevich's letter quote altogether, given that his speech doesn't appear to be substantial either. This NBC article and this from 2008 both seem a lot more substantial than the Bush coverage we have here. Saying "several" and only listing one for depiction in media isn't ideal, the "first" EF5 in Kansas seems unideal given it was the first EF5 in general but not the first F5 in Kansas (by a long shot). Ninth most recent seems unimportant - maybe replace that entire line with "Greensburg was the first of only nine tornadoes rated EF5 on the EF scale" or something to that effect. The Seneca-Oneida estimate is still unsourced and directly affects the lede. The infobox figure of $250 million also combats another estimate of $268 million - maybe inflation is the cause? "the first hospital in the United States to operate using carbon neutral energy" should be rephrased to "the first hospital in the United States to achieve carbon neutrality", and there's a lot of MOS:SANDWICHing going on, but other than that no clear show-stopping issues. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I guess Bush did say some cool stuff. I've replaced Blagojevich's letter with a sentence from Bush. "Several" has been removed and instead of a bulleted list the section is now a sentence. "First EF5 in Kansas" has been changed to "first EF5". Changed "second-widest" to "one of the widest" to compensate for the Seneca-Oneida tornado. I believe the $250 million is in fact inflation. Also changed the hospital sentence per your suggestion. Last but not least, I've removed a few of the images located on the left side of the article, as it was in fact SANDWICHing. Pinging @Departure–: (last time, I'm not trying to ruin your Christmas) to make sure I got everything. :) E_F 18:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Almost forgot to change my vote. Upon a second spot check two weeks later (editing and interest slowed over the holidays), I'd ask for a {{clear}} tag in the Satellite tornadoes section right before the table (resolve MOS:SANDWICH) and the same further down in the Damage to homes section. That could easily be put to the side as well. Other than that, support. Westchester is almost certain to be closed as delete, but this could easily take its place as the sole tornado FA. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Coord note -- nominator has left WP, inviting anyone who wishes to pick up their active GAN/FAC noms; were this on the cusp of promotion I'd probably leave it open to see how that went, but since we're nowhere near that I'm going to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: See the most recent edit to my userpage, I'll be back after New Years (something off-wiki was the cause of my "retirement" but I'll leave that there), does this still need closed? It's not like I can't work on it after Jan. 1. EF5's alt, Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Gog the Mild:, as I don't want to have to renominate, and I know the bot works fast. Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As it happens I was delayed in completing this archive, so okay, I'll AGF and take a chance that this will be pursued -- unless Gog, who first alerted the coords to your 'retirement' feels otherwise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get to it by the 3rd. Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that I will get to it, now that the self-block was lifted. E_F 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review/Spotcheck (LunaEclipse, pass)

Source review coming in a few days. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

General advice: use IABot to archive sources and prevent link rot.

:

• Date is missing.

Done. E_F 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• WL The Oklahoman.

Done. E_F 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• You use this source to claim the city's hospital was rebuilt in 2011, yet the article dates back to 2010 and does not mention the hospital's reconstruction the following year. It talks about the plans to rebuild it, and not the actual reconstruction itself.

Done, I've added a secondary reference that date construction to March 2010. I don't see any reference to the hospital being rebuilt in 2011, can you point me to where in the article that is? E_F 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I was reviewing this revision (ref 61a). I assume you typed "2011" by mistake, but you have already fixed the issue, so you should be fine. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 19:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:

• ResearchGate is unreliable per WP:RSP

Timothy Marshall, author of the survey, is considered an expert in his field (see Timothy P. Marshall), and seeing how ResearchGate is marked as "no consensus", I disagree about its reliability. E_F 14:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Would https://www.tornadotalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Damage-Survey.pdf suit it better? E_F 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's odd... Last time I checked it was considered "generally unreliable", what's going on?

I double-checked the ResearchGate link and one of the authors uploaded the study, so it should be fine. There is a duplicate of this source (ref 22). Use it to replace ref 54.

@EF5: Please address the comment above.

@LunaEclipse: Addressed. E_F 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• Source verfies the statements it is attributed to.

: See above. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:

• This one is blatant OR. Nothing here mentions it being surpassed by the aforementioned tornadoes or being the second-largest ever targeted.

Done, I've removed the entire paragraph as irrelevant. E_F 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:

• The amount of homes damaged on Main St. is not specified.

I've removed the claim. E_F 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:

• Date is missing (scroll down to the bottom of the article to find the original date)

I've added it as "2013". E_F 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:

• No mention of the high school being one block east of the tornado's convergence line.

The damage survey backed up that claim, so I've replaced the citation. E_F 14:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

:

• Pass.

:

• Pass.

:

• I cannot access this source, I will AGF and give this a pass.

:

• No mention of:
  • The 961 homes and businesses being destroyed
  • 216 of them receiving major damage
  • 307 of them receiving minor damage

I've removed it, I must've just added it as a "filler reference". E_F 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 21:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

HF

Being from the lower Midwest, it's only fitting that I review a FAC for a tornado. I've never been in a tornado myself, but I've made it through an episode of straight-line winds that blew over a grain bin and another that messed up a substation pretty good. Hog Farm _Talk 04:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• "The tornado was also one of the deadliest in Kansas history, along with being the deadliest in the history of Comanche and Kiowa Counties. The tornado is the second-widest officially surveyed tornado in Kansas history; the 2 miles (3.2 km) width estimate from the 1896 Seneca–Oneida tornado is considered unofficial and the Trousdale tornado that touched down later on May 4 had a larger width, at 2.2 miles (3.5 km)." - does not contain a citation and is just an as of date, so this is all presumably sourced to .

Why the heck does this keep being added in? Either way, removed. E_F 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

This is problematic. While our article claims that the Trousdale tornado was 2.2 miles wide, says that the Trousdale tornado was "close to 2 miles in diameter". So that's not supported. There is no reference in the source to the 1896 Seneca-Oneida tornado. The claim that it was the deadliest tornado in the history of Comanche and Kiowa counties does not seem to be supported in here.

Again, not sure why this keeps being added, but removed. E_F 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Also, how can this be the deadliest tornado in the history of Comanche County if there were no fatalities in Comanche County from this tornado?

Removed. E_F 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• "662 structures in the town sustained some form of damage before the tornado left the area." - are we sure this is right? The cited source says that EF ratings were assigned to 662 homes in the "wood-framed homes" section. And in the summary it says that "EF-scale ratings were assigned to 662 wood-framed houses". This National Weather Service page says that "In all, 961 homes and businesses were destroyed, 216 sustained major damage and 307 received minor damage". The 662 figure in the Marshall source is only wood-framed homes, excluding other types of structure

Fixed. E_F 22:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• ", and strong winds initiated a collapse on the school's south and east-facing walls." - the source says "the east and west walls were broadsided by the strongest winds and collapsed to the west in the east and south buildings.". So it was the east and west-facing walls that collapsed, not the south and east-facing walls. The east and south part is the buildings (out of 4 in the complex) that had wall collapses.
• "The large tornado continued due-north, following Main Street into the south side of Greensburg. Multiple homes, including an entire row of seven adjacent residences, were completely swept away and scattered across a field in this area at the south edge of town. Three of the houses were well-bolted to their foundations, and ground scouring occurred nearby. Damage in this area was rated EF5 as a result" - this is sourced to Marshall et al 2.5, which is the section for the Greensburg high school. Section 2.1 of this source does mention that seven residences did have EF5 ratings, but not that they were in a row.
• Tanamachi 2011 is cited 11 times without page numbers. This is problematic as the source is over 230 pages long.

Fixed. E_F 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• "and at 9:38 pm CDT, storm chasers reported that it had grown to over 0.5 miles (0.80 km) in diameter. " - with a lack in pagination and the fact that the cited source has all of the times in UDT, this is hard to find, but searching for 38 and going through all of the references of that number doesn't even help me find where this is in the source

Removed. E_F 15:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the sourcing needs quite a bit of work here before I can even start a content review. Hog Farm _Talk 01:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• " "7 Most Memorable Storms of the Past Two Decades". Shamrock Roofing and Construction. October 16, 2023. Retrieved November 12, 2024." - what makes a local roofing company a high-quality RS?

Removed. E_F 15:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• "At around 7:00 pm CDT, the National Weather Service office in Dodge City, Kansas began to detect a mesocyclone associated with a parent supercell. Several minutes later, a bounded weak echo region (BWER) began to be present on radar, located on then storm's northern flank. As the storm continued to move northeast, strong inflow was being detected in the lower levels of the supercell, and the supercell began to slow to 26.8 miles per hour (43.1 km/h). At around this time, two more mesocyclones were being tracked behind the main supercell; these were accompanied by BWERs. Multiple brief and weak tornadoes touched down as a result of these storms, including "twin" rope tornadoes that were documented by at least one storm chaser on the ground." - Can you please point out to me where some of these various claims are in the source? This is cited to "p. 7" of the source, although the actual pagination in the source is 899-92. I'm guessing you mean p. 7 of the PDF? There's no uses of "bounded" in the document, or "BWER", but there's a reference to "At 0127 UTC, a weak cyclonicshear signature is evident at the location of a narrow hook echo on the rear flank of the storm" which must be the BWER. But that's on p. 11 (909) of the PDF. Page 7 contains a reference to a precipitation echo, but that seems to be a much more general reference than this specific type of radar echo? I can't find 43.1 or 26.8 in the document, or km/h, or m/h or anything like that in the source. Is this in some other measurement that's then converted back into a more familiar one in the article? As to the rope tornadoes, the word "rope" does not appear anywhere in the source, and there are no tornadoes mentioned on p. 7 of the source
• How is the Blago letter due weight? We're sourcing it to a press release from his own office. Was there any actual in-depth news reporting about this thing? This is the sort of condolences governors send to each other after tragedies all the time

Removed the mention. E_F 15:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• What makes Highways & Hailstones a high-quality RS? It's About Us page identifies it as a storm-chaser community but I'm not seeing anything about the various authors credentials

I've removed the entire Trousdale section, including that citation, as it's caused more harm than not. E_F 15:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to oppose and suggest withdrawal and some form of peer review. The pagination is a mess, there's other source-text integrity issues, and another reviewer has noted "blatant OR". I don't think this was anywhere near ready for FAC when it was nominated. Hog Farm _Talk 05:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I’m still recovering from the flu, but I’ll get to it soon, although not by withdrawing, as these seem to be fixable issues. E_F 13:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose for now from Hurricanehink

I figure I should review since I have a weather FAC of my own. I started with an open mind, wanting and hoping that my comments would be fairly easy, but the more I read through the article, there were some fairly glaring parts that need some work.

• "On the evening of May 4, 2007, amid a tornado outbreak, a large and devastating EF5 tornado moved through Kiowa County, Kansas, United States, causing catastrophic damage to the town of Greensburg. " - the "United States" here feels clunky. Since you're sneaking in how you link in the larger tornado outbreak, maybe link it as a tornado outbreak across the central United States? That way, people know you're not just linking "tornado outbreak", but a specific one.
• "moving to the north while continuously widening" - since you mention its width, you should mention somewhere in the lead the peak width of the tornado
• "Northwest of Greensburg, the tornado suddenly turned, looping back around before dissipating over an hour after first touching down." - the "looping" part is uncertain. Did it move back over Greensburg a second time?
• "and leaving $268 million (2007 USD) in damage." - you should have a note here indicating that all damage totals are in 2007 USD.
• "Rebuilding efforts after the tornado were intensive, and several major government agencies collaborated with state agencies to help rebuild the town with the goal of making it a "green town" using a Long-Term Community Recovery plan that included requiring all buildings in Greensburg to gain LEED Platinum certification, along with installing wind turbines in the city. " - way too much for one sentence
• "In 2011, Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, which was destroyed by the tornado, was the first hospital in the United States to achieve carbon neutrality." - this is weirdly worded, and I suggest adding when the hospital was rebuilt so there's more context.
• Usually weather disasters result in some kind of disaster area. Was that ever declared for Kiowa County? When?
• "On May 4, a low-pressure area stalled over the High Plains and additional moisture coming from the Gulf of Mexico moved in behind the warm front and increased amounts of instability across much of the region, with CAPE values as high as 5,500 J/kg." - that is way too much for one sentence. Too much jargon, and too much context for setting up the outbreak. For example, I have no idea what J/kg is. Is any of this important or not?
• "The atmosphere remained capped for much of the day" - again how important is this bit of jargon? Just linking something doesn't mean something you don't have to explain it.
• "The most intense supercells developed in the early evening hours across northwestern Oklahoma and southwestern Kansas." - you really don't have to link evening
• The note that "For consistency, all times are displayed in Central Daylight Time (CDT)." should be earlier in the article
• The article needs a source that the peak winds were 205 mph, I see it nowhere
• "At the time of these tornadoes, discrete circulation began to be monitored within the Greensburg supercell" - the grammar seems weird
• "Prior to touching down, the tornado discretely cycled and begun rotating under the southwest flank of its parent supercell, accompanied by several small rope tornadoes and funnel clouds. One of these rope tornadoes, located on the westernmost side of the mesocyclone began to rapidly strengthen, taking on a wedge shape shortly after touching down." - wait part of this seems like what was just described in "Greensburg supercell development"
• "Several farmsteads along the highway were damaged or destroyed, livestock was killed, and trees were denuded and debarked in this area as well. " - considering more than one livestock were likely killed, you should keep it consistent and make it "were" instead of "was"
• Why the hyphen for "due-north"?
• "Multiple homes, including an entire row of seven adjacent residences, were completely swept away and scattered across a field in this area at the south edge of town." - you have some redundant wording here, which I struck
• "Damage in this area was rated EF5 as a result." - was this also the basis for the highest estimated winds? If so, here could be a good place to add, with a citation, the info that also appears in the infobox
• "Continuing north, downtown Greensburg was completely devastated by the tornado, with numerous businesses destroyed. Two schools, a Tractor Supply Company store, the Greensburg City Hall and other businesses fell victim to the violent winds and were destroyed or flattened." - you're adding impact in here, so I take it you're doing impacts chronologically? Even if so, this section is wordy and could be clear by being simpler. Also is there a difference between flattened or destroyed?
• ""A motel on the west side of town was severely damaged, trees throughout the town were completely denuded and stripped clean of all bark, and vehicles were thrown hundreds of yards and mangled beyond recognition." - again this seems like a lot for one sentence. For example, did any of the vehicles have anyone in them? How many vehicles were thrown? You mentioned the downed trees, but I imagine other vegetation was also affected? IDK just seems like it could be expanded
• You mention the tornado's convergence line three times. I have no idea what that is and I'm a weather geek.
• "Meanwhile, the Greensburg meteorite, which was feared to have been blown away, was found and recovered a few days afterwards." - where was it recovered? How far?
• "The tornado also caused an estimated $268 million (2007 USD) in damages to Greensburg." - why is this inconsistent with the infobox?
• "as well as the most recent EF5 tornado to occur in Kansas as of 2025." - so you don't have to keep updating the year "as of", you should change 2025 to 2025, that is Template:Currentyear.
• The "Fatalities" should definitely not be in the "Aftermath" section, not when the second paragraph says "The tornado was also one of the deadliest in Kansas history"
• Why is note 3 as of November 2024?
• "A damage survey conducted by Timothy P. Marshall, Joshua Wurman and several other experts found that a total of fifty-three homes were slid off of brick foundations that anchored the homes to the ground; this damage later received an EF2 rating. " - why did you write out the number instead of "53"? Also, does that mean no homes had greater than EF2 damage? Only businesses and other buildings?
• "The survey also found that only seventeen percent of homes damaged by the tornado were damaged to the point where occupation would not be possible, and 28 manufactured homes were destroyed." - I don't like the "only" here. Also, I have to do the math to figure out that 17% of the total number of houses gives me the total number of homes left uninhabitable? My calculator says 113.
• " Despite this, the hospital sustained heavy damage, and a 9,900 pounds (4,500 kg) steel beam was lifted from the hospital's frame and lofted into a vehicle to the hospital's northeast. - this tells me nothing about what happened to the hospital, or equipment, or patients.
• "Following the tornado, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) activated the Long-Term Community Recovery (LTCR) program, which was designed to help recovery efforts with joint cooperation with the State of Kansas and other federal agencies willing to help." - was there any FEMA disaster declaration?
• I know more about the hospital's toilets than I know about the rebuilding of the city, other than "Many homes in Greensburg were rebuilt in the years following the tornado". Not that I'm saying cut the information about the hospital's toilet's, but I'd like to know more about when the rebuilding started.
• I don't think it's useful saying all of the unknown bits in the fatalities section. Also, you give the exact names for people, in violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL.
• According to the city's Misplaced Pages article, the population decreased after the tornado. Do you have anything about that, or the city's trajectory after the tornado?

The article is generally well-written, so my concerns aren't about the prose. However, several parts left me wanting more. I think there were a few too many parts that I felt were pretty serious signs that the article is not ready to be a featured article yet. However, I hope my comments can point the article in the right direction, and I'm happy to respond to any questions you might have. Therefore it's more of a weak oppose, and with some work I might change my mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)