Jump to content

Talk:1991 Andover tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Draft notability table

[edit]
EF5's Tornado AfD / AfC Table
Criteria no. Sub-criteria Description Pass? Fail? Comments
1 (Coverage) 1a Any coverage? checkY Quick-fail if criterion is not met
1b Any significant coverge? (e.g. CNN or the NYT) checkY
1c Any lasting coverage past 6 months after the tornado? checkY Usually a quick-pass
2 (Strength) 2a Was the tornado EF0-EF2? Usually a sign of non-notability, there are exceptions to this though
2b Was the tornado EF3? May be a sign of notability
2c Was the tornado EF4? Usually a sign of notability
2d Was the tornado EF5? checkY If a post-2013 EF5, then an instant pass. Usually a quick-pass
3 (Damage) 3a Did the tornado kill at least one person? checkY Usually a sign of notability
3b Did the tornado injure at least one person? checkY
3c Did the tornado cause monetary damage totaling over $200,000 USD? checkY
4 (Aftermath) 4a Did the tornado significantly damage a town? checkY If not, then usually a sign of non-notability
4b Any notable deaths? checkY Usually not the case, can be skipped
5 (Content) 5a Is the article not a CFORK of an existing section? checkY Quick-fail if criterion is not met
5b Can the content not be easily merged into a section? checkY Quick-fail if criterion is not met
5c Is the article longer than the page on its respective outbreak? checkY Usually a quick-pass
5d Is the article a GA, FA or has recently been featured on DYK? checkY Usually a quick-pass
6 (Overall) 6a Are at least five of these criterion met, with exceptions made if needed? checkY If at least 1b, 3b, 3c, 5c and 1c are met, then a pass is warranted. If not, then a fail is warranted. Exceptions can be made at my discretion.
Final verdict: Pass: Article should be made, I'll work on it today.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
The tornado at F4 intensity on the grounds of the McConnell Air Force Base
The tornado at F4 intensity on the grounds of the McConnell Air Force Base
Created by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

EF5 17:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @EF5: Please provide a QPQ ASAP. Current QPQ rules require one to be provided at the time of the nomination, and noms can be closed without warning if one is not provided quickly. As it has been almost a week since the nom and no QPQ has been provided, the nomination will be closed if a QPQ is not provided soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: Done. I don't remember this rule existing earlier this year, when was this set into motion? EF5 13:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new rule that was only introduced about a month or two ago following a WT:DYK discussion. Normally I would have just closed the nomination given the length of time that has passed, but given that you may not have been aware of the new rule I decided to ping instead and give a reminder. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential nuclear detonation speculation

[edit]

The text says it is unknown if these bombs would have been detonated had the tornado hit the aircraft. This statement appears to be referenced but checking the reference, it is not. This then seems like superfluous material - might as well say the author of the article does not know. Of course if there had been notable public concern over this in the media at the time then that might be a referenceable matter. Geopersona (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume so. I'll check Newspapers.com to see if they have anything. EF5 14:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1991 Andover tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 01:53, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Departure– (talk · contribs) 19:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this to make up for my debt of three GAs and no reviews.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    This article needs a good bit of copyediting, especially around piped links to terms. Some of the technical language is also a bit over-the-top.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    I haven't done a source spotcheck or copyvio search (will get to it eventually) but there are a lot of inline citations missing.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I was a little apprehensive about the magazine cover but I buy it's public domain status.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    This article is, say, 85% of the way there. It's missing a copyedit, moving a few citations about, and some language being de-mystified to the average reader. Nothing show-stopping that couldn't get done in an afternoon. Will get to a source check soon enough. Departure– (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Departure–, huh, how'd I miss all those inlines? I'll fix. — EF5 13:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Could you clarify on some of the prose issues? — EF5 12:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the late response, I was busy elsewhere. I think the best thing you can do right now just looking at it is to go through and change anything that seems "off" to you - your writing style has greatly improved since you made this article and there's a few odd phrases, wording, and claims here and there that need cleaning up, for instance the park was torn apart in winds that were greater than 260 miles per hour (420 km/h) in the lede - the lede is supposed to cover all major aspects of a tornado event, not just a basic summary of the "Tornado summary" section, and F5 already means the wind speed you gave. Departure– (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take that as a compliment ;) . I'll go through shortly. Also good to note that there is an active discussion at the WP:DISCORD over whether some of A1C Studebaker's photographs and that incredibly famous video of the tornado over the AFB was carried out by him acting in his duties as part of PD-USGOV. I'll follow up on that shortly, and if you want I could get Rlandmann involved. — EF5 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I haven't forgot about it, I just had some "higher-priority" things. I'll get to it when I get home. — EF5 19:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
     Done— EF5 20:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @EF5: Got here from your talk page (sorry about the failed GAN!), I am interested in still reviewing this but I've been busy with this week's severe weather and this fell into the backlog.
    My main two issues with this article are that Meteorological synopsis has a missing inline citation for its last sentence and the lede should satisfactorily summarize the Aftermath section. The article's looking pretty good other than that. Still need to do a source check, though. Departure– (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Departure–, also, the failed GAN was based on reviewer inactivity, so unrelated to the article itself. :-) — EF5 14:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
┌───────────────────────────┘
Departure–, argh, I've been pretty busy too. I've removed the last paragraph as I can't find a ref, and most of the aftermath is summarized in the lede's first paragraph but I've added a short second para. — EF5 14:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Barring that, it's just missing a source spotcheck, which I will get to later on. (Oh, also, a {{clear}} tag is needed between the MS and TS sections.) Departure– (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source spotcheck ongoing. Departure– (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Where did you find the exact figure for the strength of the jet streak? Departure– (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to verify the exact figure of 4000 for CAPE. Did you use a conversion from the lifted index? Departure– (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, see above. — EF5 16:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, Factotum bugged out. I didn't write it; it's a direct copy-paste from the outbreak article. Shall I just remove it? — EF5 16:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't verify it, so yeah. Departure– (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Departure–, nevermind, I found a ref to verify. Added. — EF5 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would be one of 24 convective watches issued during the day. Can't verify this from the source provided, and truthfully I don't see how it's relevant to the Andover tornado specifically. Departure– (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
although intense tornadoes were also observed in Iowa, Texas, and Nebraska - without a source the "intense" descriptor should be dropped. Average readers would really only care that tornadoes happened elsewhere at all. Departure– (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 16:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per the spotcheck, I found the first 27 minutes of the tornado's life are not in the article (but could probably be added easily from the first ref in the TS section). Departure– (talk) Departure– (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the tornado began to affect southeastern sections of Wichita - source verifies southern Wichita. Haysville was struck at 6:20, that should probably be specified. Departure– (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — EF5 16:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The tornado crossed the Kansas Turnpike about 0.5 miles (0.80 km) south of the South Wichita Interchange. Can't verify. Departure– (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 16:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
were completely leveled, Four people were - make that comma a period. Departure– (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. — EF5 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
which had already activated its Federal Signal 2T22 civil defense siren to warn of the tornado - can't verify siren activation. Departure– (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 16:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nine major facilities on the base were destroyed, including the officer's club, base hospital, library, and elementary school. - Source verifies "nine major facilities" but I can't verify which. Departure– (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, reworded. — EF5 16:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, 102 housing units were demolished. No fatalities were recorded there, though 16 people were injured and total losses reached $62 million (1991 USD) - can't verify housing units or casualty count. Can verify monetary losses. Departure– (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 16:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it prompted forecasters to issue a heightened tornado warning for residents in Augusta and Andover - can't verify "heightened" warning of any type, nor can I verify "Augusta" being under a warning. Departure– (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 17:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the police drove through the Golden Spur Mobile Home Park and through the town warning residents to seek shelter - Horrifying and familiar, but not verified from the source. Departure– (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref added. — EF5 17:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-storm interviews by health officials found that 339 residents were home during the tornado, of which 146 evacuated, 149 sought refuge in the community shelter, and 38 remained in their homes. - Source isn't free but I can verify everything from the preview except the figure of 339 - the preview says 336, and there was data available on 333 residents. This part should also specify residents of the mobile home park. Departure– (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, reworded. — EF5 14:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
another 17 were hospitalized, and 9 sustained minor injuries among the group who remained in their structures. Don't have access to this part of the source, so if you could e-mail it or find a free version, I'd appreciate it. This paragraph also shouldn't have a linebreak before the "However,". Departure– (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Twenty minutes later, the violent tornado dissipated west of El Dorado and north of the Kansas Turnpike, though the parent supercell later produced additional tornadoes. - Timestamp would be appreciated. Also, can't verify the bolded part. Departure– (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, removed. — EF5 14:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Along the tornado's path, 84 frame houses and 14 businesses were leveled. A total of 225 people were injured - the source is on the whole outbreak, doesn't specify "frame houses" or "businesses", and doesn't say how many of those and the injury count came from just the Andover tornado. Departure– (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back shortly, I need a bit of a break. Departure– (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Ping me when you're done with these and I'll conclude my source check. Departure– (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, reworded. — EF5 14:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Andover, the tornado directly impacted a mobile trailer park that had 244 homes in it; after the tornado only 39 of these homes could be recovered. - Redundant, covered earlier. Was having a hard time verifying until I found out the source given only verifies the amount destroyed. This could probably be dropped from one of either in the TS or the current Aftermath section.
which carved a 46 miles (74 km) path - I know there's a way to get the cvt tag to say "46 mile (XY km)" without the "s" at the end, but it's a minor issue; either change it to "a path of X miles Y km" or ignore it as it's not a big deal. Departure– (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the tornado lofted a full oil tank 0.8 miles - Source says "rolled and bounced", which isn't the same as "lofted". Departure– (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Four deaths occurred in Sedgwick County, and the thirteen others were all living or residing in the park at the time the tornado hit. - Not a factual error, but the source splits this into fifteen from people specifically outside of mobile homes and four from Greenwich Heights across all tornadoes - the bundled refs makes this hard to verify but I can pass this. Departure– (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
200 people who lived at the park took refuge in an underground tornado shelter - Source says 200 to 300. Departure– (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
225 people were further injured by the tornado, - Source says 175(?). Departure– (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Please ping me when done. I'm hoping to finish this review within the next week. Departure– (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1991_Andover_tornado&oldid=1289151999"