This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LunaEclipse (talk | contribs) at 13:05, 2 January 2025 (→Source review/Spotcheck (LunaEclipse)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:05, 2 January 2025 by LunaEclipse (talk | contribs) (→Source review/Spotcheck (LunaEclipse))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)2007 Greensburg tornado
2007 Greensburg tornado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As of 5 January 2025, 22:23 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): EF 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. EF 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. EF 14:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Kiowa County Memorial Hospital, destroyed in the tornado," change to "which was destroyed in the tornado"
- "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.
- "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. EF 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. EF 20:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Shortly after this circulation was first found" swap "found" with "detected" or some variant, ideally.
- "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. EF 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. EF 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. EF 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. EF 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.
- 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. EF 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. EF 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. EF 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? EF 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. :) EF 18:56, 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)
- @Departure–: How's it look now? EF 17:53, 25 December 2024 (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. EF 00:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll get to it by the 3rd. Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Source review/Spotcheck (LunaEclipse)
Source review coming in a few days. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ 00:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: