Misplaced Pages

Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EF5 (talk | contribs) at 00:02, 8 December 2024 (→Edits by Luffaloaf: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:02, 8 December 2024 by EF5 (talk | contribs) (→Edits by Luffaloaf: add)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on June 29, 2023 and June 29, 2024.
This article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconWeather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Misplaced Pages. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconGermany Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Good articles1764 Woldegk tornado has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 26, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Wind speed

I don't see any mention of wind speed in the citation, how would they possibly figure this out 250 years ago. I would imagine the speed is derived from the Fujita scale and according to the MOS:UNIT it should have SI units primary. Avi8tor (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Violation unlikely (4.8%, no search engine)
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Article is very focused on the topic
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article's history shows no edit wars or major instability. However, @Cocobb8: tagged "more citations needed" though did not elaborate their reasons. The usage definition should not apply to this article per six reference and the article's length seems fine, and "individual unreferenced statements" should be tagged cn. I have not checked for verifiability. Perhaps wrong template used? Cocobb8, if you can explain the reasons for tagging, that would greatly help my review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Fine
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Fine
7. Overall assessment.

Well-written

Lede

  • Date of occurrence and location it affected is missing from lede
 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • a 77-paragraph detailed study by German scientist Gottlob Burchard Genzmer, which was published one year after the tornado occurred. → "77-paragraph detailed study" change to "detailed 77-paragraph study" , "which was published one year after the tornado occurred" delete "which was"
 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "several tree branches were believed to have been thrown into the atmosphere" → change "were believed to have been" to reportedly
 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Large hail, reportedly reaching 15 centimetres (6 in) in diameter covered the ground, caused significant crop and property damage, killed dozens of animals, and injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." → "Large hail, reportedly reaching 15 centimetres (6 in) in diameter covered the ground. The hail caused significant crop and property damage, killed dozens of animals, and injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." break in two sentence
 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Body

  • "and uprooted oak trees and beech trees." → "and began uprooting oak and beech trees."
 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The tornado escalated into F2–F3 intensity as it threw two children" → "It escalated into F2–F3 intensity, throwing two children"
 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Several geese were "smashed" by hail around this time as well, and the tornado grew" → "Around this time, several geese were "smashed" by hail, and the tornado grew"
 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Is there a name for the lake mentioned in the first paragraph? Perhaps Genzmer's description has it
Genzmer's report is in German and due to what it is, I am unable to translate it easily. The academic paper did not mention the name of the lake, so unless someone can translate all of Genzmer's report to check, I do not think the lake's name is known. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "the tornado" is used in excess, so avoid that repetitive language in para 2
 Done: Replaced two "the tornado" with "it". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "The tornado increased in severity as it tore the bark from an oak tree at F4 intensity" → "The tornado intensified, tearing the bark from an oak tree at F4 intensity"
 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Para 4: "oak and beech tree forest" → "oak and beech forest"
 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Canzow is the settlement just west of Woldegk where the article described damage, it's probably worth mentioning
 Done: added "near the settlement of Canzow". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "the tornado struck an airborne flock of geese, killing some and injuring 60–100 geese" close paraphrasing needs attention. Try "Further to the northeast, the tornado caught a flock of geese in flight, killing some and injuring between 60 and 100 geese.
 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References & verifiability

Lede

  • The Patowary ref is cited as a news article, though I have strong doubts. First, every article is authored by the same person, and the author's linked profile leads me to speculate this source is a blog. At the end of the blog, it cites the ECSS 2015 conference and Norddeutscher Rundfunk, which are already referenced in this article. Per Misplaced Pages's policy on blogs, Patowary ref must be removed and replaced if necessary.
 Done: Removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This may be a similar case with the "Vista al Mar" ref

 Done: Removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • T11 claim supported by European Severe Weather Database, does not speak of wind speed. Can you include a reference for that?
 Done: Reference added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "Most of the information known about this tornado came from a 77-paragraph detailed study by German scientist Gottlob Burchard Genzmer, which was published one year after the tornado occurred." : Genzmer's ref is unnecessary, Strüber of NDR went with "56-page" so can we stick with that?
 Not done I'm going to disagree with this change. ESSL and the academic paper specifically reference Genzmer's report, with the latter saying, "The report (consisting of a foreword and seven letters with total 77 paragraphs) is addressed to the minister of Mecklenburg-Strelitz who asked the author for a survey of the damage and the circumstances of this natural disaster." For that, I will not remove the reference and will not change it to "56-page". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "... injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." : the two refs afterwards aren't necessary once the contents in the body are verified (with the same refs).
 Done: Refs removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Body

  • Para 1 and 2 exclusively cite the ECSS ref so one in-line ref at the end of each para would suffice
 Done: Additional in-line refs removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "the lake's water rose in what was likely a seiche and then retreated around the time of the tornado", no mention of a seiche in the ref
 Done: "Seiche" removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The database in-line ref immediately after the 3rd sentence of para 3 isn't needed
 Done: in-line removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The ESSL ref assigns the mansion damage F5, while NDR source says the basis for F5 was "oak stumps torn from the ground". Vista al Mar appears to be a blog. Database ref doesn't explicitly say it is maximum damage, is this screenshot part of a larger archived database?
Answered below in MOS-section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "After destroying the mansion, the tornado quickly weakened to F1 and left a 500-metre (550 yd) wide path of light damage in a forest." unreferenced but the corresponding ref is probably ECSS
 Done: In-line for ECSS added. Despite it being references two sentences back-to-back, the preceding sentence has a direct quote, so the double in-line is needed in my opinion. It can be removed if necessary for the GAN though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Entirety of the last paragraph cites ECSS so only one in-line citation required at the end
 Done: Addition in-line refs removed.

MOS

I presume  Done? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please include the original url and archive date of the European Severe Weather Database ref
 Done: Reference of the ESWD was copied from Tornadoes of 2024. Note, the ESWD is an auto-updating reference which only displays the latest 25 reports (99% chance they are all from the day you open it). Users have to manually change the date. I am just adding that reference, since readers/editors have a few manual steps to actual verify the reference, now that the Internet Archive screenshot (not ESWD archived link) was removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Norddeutscher Rundfunk ref is missing publication date
 Done: Reference fixed up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

Fine

Overall

This is a really interesting albeit short article. There's problems with some of the references here, and the prose can be further refined. The nominator has another seven days to address the GA concerns before I can pass this review.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter are you going to respond to the comments for the GAN? Otherwise I will close this review by Friday PST as failed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dora the Axe-plorer: I have made the necessary changes I believe. If I missed something or additional changes are needed, please shoot me a ping! I do appreciate you taking the time to review the article! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt response! Ill go through the changes again and i can eventually pass this if all is good. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Alright one more nitpicking, the Feuerstein reference says the wind speed for T11 is 468 to 515 km/h whereas the article claims T11 is at least 480 km/h. Can you clarify this and also add cite for the respective tornado scales in the footnote? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this is now  Done. It gets really confusing since the TORRO scale, in actuality, is obsolete and is barely used anymore (actually only used now-adays by the TORRO organization). TORRO's own website on the scale doesn't list the wind speeds for T11, but they do mention "T8, T9, T10, T11 are violent tornadoes" below the chart. T10 goes to 299 mph per their own scale. ESSL mentions the tornado was rated T11/F5, but only this tornado holds the T11 rank. Every other T10 tornado has already been converted to F5 or IF5, so I am 99% sure this is the last "violent" tornado on the TORRO-scale. Basically, just an archival fact now. T11 exists per TORRO, but since T10 ends at 299 mph, it is 300+ mph. I added the TORRO-scale website to the citation. Hopefully that fixes the issue and helps explain why it seems like a pain to verify this. TL;DR - T11 exists, but does not exist at the same time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I will pass this article the green light for GA Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

I see there is an ongoing disagreement between Luffaloaf and Dora the Axe-plorer on the article. Instead of edit warring, could both of y'all come and discuss it here? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter Actually @Luffaloaf should discuss this with you because of the content disagreement. I only rv their edits because it broke the infobox source code such that they're in the prose. I assume Luffaloaf is educated about tornadoes so please sort that out, and :@Luffaloaf, don't disrupt the source code/delete references, please preview your edits. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
@Luffaloaf your rationale may be legitimate but the execution is problametic so if another revert by you goes through, I am obliged to report to ANI Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I’d take notes from how the entries for various earlier modern, significant tornadoes were written. The Tri-State tornado outbreak, one we have photographic evidence of in regards to its damage, is a good example (I deleted the “peak wind” estimate, as it is misleading and not scientifically verifiably give the tornado occurred in 1925). The article avoids a rigorous F-value-by-F-value damage analysis because we simply don’t have one. That kind of thing should be saved for tornadoes surveyed by contemporary teams of engineers and meteorologists. Certainly there should be no publishing wind speed estimates that haven’t been surveyed by Doppler radar. ~~~~ Luffaloaf (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Edits by Luffaloaf

@Luffaloaf If you disagree with the content, you discuss with the editor until both of you come to an agreement. Do not break the infobox source code/delete references. and if you actually want to remove content, preview your edits. Your changes didn't improve the state of the article either. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is riddled with problems. For one, Fujita scale values are only certifiable from the era of the scale’s invention in the 1970s. Tornadoes that long predate the modern era of meteorological study should not have infoboxes that assert MPH wind speeds (and associated TORRO values), nor have fake intensity guidance for the alleged damage path manufactured for them by the editors. For instance, “debarked an oak tree at F4 intensity” - this is a completely inappropriate usage of the Fujita scale. Debarking doesn’t guarantee any tornado receives an F4 rating, and portions of a tornado’s path are not decided based on “debarking” alone. All of the mentions of Fujita scale values in the article need to be removed bar the ones that estimate a peak at F5. This is an estimated, potential rating, not one that’s been certified by a team of engineers based on modern practices. Additionally, the superlative language used should be removed (as in the sentence proclaiming it one of the “strongest tornadoes in history” in the summary. We already have people online proclaiming it to be “stronger than Joplin”, a tornado we actually have a team of engineers survey for from days after it occurred, because this page on Woldegk shares misleading wind speeds, exaggerations, and other misinformation the likes of which would be deleted on a page for any other tornado). The last thing I’ll say is the likelihood that this tornado was not an F5 is very high, as the death/injury count is anomalously low, the nature of the damage and the engineering of the impacted structures cannot be verified (they likely wouldn’t be to such a standard to warrant an F5 rating), and Europe’s tornado climatology simply isn’t conducive to that kind of storm - such an intense tornado has not been identified in Europe for the modern period of record. Luffaloaf (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
You should check out the European Severe Storms Laboratory (the EU's counterpart to NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, specifically their European Severe Weather Database, which actually directly states, the following for the 1764 Woldegk tornado:

Tornado

Woldegk
Feldberg, Schlicht, Lichtenberg, Lichtenberger Meierei, Neugarten, Rothe Kirche, Canzow, Woldegk, Helpt, Groß Miltzow Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Germany (53.46 N, 13.57 E)
29-06-1764 (Friday)
12:05 UTC (+/- 1 hrs.)
based on information from: a report in scientific literature, a report on a website, an eye-witness report
occurring over: land
intensity and other characteristics: F5 T11
Suction vortices were not observed.
The funnel cloud was observed.
accompanying weather: hail >= 0.5 cm but < 2.0 in diameter.
total event duration: 35 minutes
path length: 33 km
average path width: 450 m
maximum path width: 800 m
direction of movement: SSW-NNE
path start from (53.33 N, 13.41 E)
path end at (53.54 N, 13.60 E)
Number of people injured: 3. Number of people dead: 1.
Path width 104 m, 48 m, 160 m, 240 m, 80 m, 280 m, 750 m, 360 m, 230 m, 800 m Hail swath left of tornado swath, large debris thrown over some tens of km Hailstones "up to two pound weight with 15 cm ice spikes"
report status: scientific case study (QC2)

contact: TorDACH V1.6.00, tordach.org/de, ; G. B. Genzmer, 1765: Beschreibung des Orcans, welcher den 29ten Jun. 1764; einen Strich von etlichen Meilen im Stargardischen Kreise des Herzogthums; Mecklenburg gewaltig verüstet hat. F. Nicolai, Berlin und Stettin.; A. Wegener, 1917: Wind- und Wasserhosen in Europa, Vieweg, 301 S.; (available on www.tordach.org)

— European Severe Storms Laboratory
You should also check out this academic paper, which includes a damage survey map with modern Fujita scale ratings. Hopefully that helps! When I created this article, I ensured everything was cited and as accurate as possible. That is also one reason it passed Misplaced Pages's Good Article Nomination process, to be rated as one of the best articles on Misplaced Pages in terms of quality. If you have any other questions though, feel free to ask away! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The source doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as there needs to be acknowledgment of its age, and the fact that the damage analysis is filtered through 18th century witness accounts, not a modern team of engineers. Additionally, natural science was very different in the 18th century. Technology didn’t enable intensity guidance rating for tornadoes, and nothing in the damage description warrants an F5 rating, which was applied to manufacture a climatology for violent tornadoes in Europe. At the very least, claims that it is the “strongest tornado ever” need to be removed, assertions that debarking occurs at “F4 intensity” need to be removed, and arbitrary wind speeds that weren’t REMOTELY measured (and affiliated TORRO values) need to be removed. NOAA is not so unprofessional an organization that it hands out Fujita scale classifications to 250+ year old tornadoes. That ESSL would shows that they’re flaunting scientific process and care more about media hype and money. Luffaloaf (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
The source doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as there needs to be acknowledgment of its age, and the fact that the damage analysis is filtered through 18th century witness accounts. Additionally, natural science was very different in the 18th century. Technology didn’t enable intensity guidance rating for tornadoes, and nothing in the damage description warrants an F5 rating, which was applied to manufacture a climatology for violent tornadoes in Europe. At the very least, claims that it is the “strongest tornado ever” need to be removed, assertions that debarking occurs at “F4 intensity” need to be removed, and arbitrary wind speeds that weren’t REMOTELY measured (and affiliated TORRO values) need to be removed. ~~~~ Luffaloaf (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
So...you just stated PhD meteorologists, who regularly publish academic papers all the time, as well as the meteorologist who physically surveyed the 2021 South Moravia tornado & who helped created the International Fujita scale, is an unreliable source? You do reaize that academic paper is not from the 18th century, but from September 2015 right? You should take a quick look at Misplaced Pages's verifiability policy. Everything on Misplaced Pages has to have a source. All the information in this article has a source, including that "F4 intensity" statement. If you believe the ESSL is not a reliable source, then you need to bring it up at WP:RSP, since the European Severe Storms Laboratory is used across dozens of Misplaced Pages articles, including the List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
They have continued to argue about it's rating off-wiki] (if I'm even allowed to add that, please remove this comment if I'm not), I would watchlist this page as I wouldn't be surprised if they come back. EF 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Categories: