Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tornado

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

The article was promoted 16:41, 26 March 2007.

Tornado[edit]

After nearly a year of improvements, a complete re-write, and several branch-off articles, I think it's finally ready for FAC. Fire away! -RunningOnBrains 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As of the present version, many references need fixing. There are some citations which are just link to external sources. These need to be fixed, that is properly cited, with title, author name, publisher, date of access etc. Again, a few of access dates are not properly formated. Apparently looks to be a very informative article. Will read it soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there a need for nineteen images in this article? It corrupts the formatting. Also, footnotes need to go directly after punctuation. Slof 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could remove a few images to help the format, but for a very visual subject such as tornadoes a fair amount of images is necessary IMHO. On the references, I forgot to fix them before bringing the article to FAC...I'm fixing them as we speak.-RunningOnBrains 05:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very nice article. However, seems to be low in inline citations. Please provide more citations, especially in sections like "Life cycle", "Shape", "Appearance", "Extremes". And I support your view of containing a fair number of images. Their impact is great. The blank space to the right of the list in "See also" can be used for accomodating one or two images in case those become hard to incorporate in main body of the article for formatting problems. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that there are a few sections which could use a few more citations. However, there are some sections where I purposefully omitted references because they contain a wikilink to the subject, and that wikilink provides the needed sources. In my opinion this reduces clutter, but I don't know how the rest of the editing community feels about it. It's quite hard to interpret that "where appropriate" statement in the FA criteria. -RunningOnBrains 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you. The sections I mentioned are quite professional and its imperative that those are based on easily verifiable sources. "Where appropriate" is somewhat vague, especially for the main author of the article. If you say, I can go and add some citation needed tags where I feel inline citations are needed. You can just check them and provide citations. What do you say? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Unfortunately, I don't have guaranteed internet access until Saturday (they're "fixing" the internet where I live) but after that I should have no problem doing the research. -RunningOnBrains 18:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the number of pictures in this article is adequate, and they serve to illustrate the subject very well and to explain the difference between tornado types. One nitpick: A few of the references are just bare URLs. They should be cited with the {{Cite web}} format. Also, there are several paragraphs in a row that don't specifically cite a reference, but then there's a reference at the end of the series. Does that imply that all of those paragraphs have the same reference? (I suspect it does, but you might want to make those references explicit). As far as the content and readability goes, I support the article fully. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 20:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have finished fixing the refs to {{cite web}}. I also introduced a few more refs (or just added more footnotes for refs already on the page) in sections that were a bit sparse. If you see an area where you think there still should be a reference, let me know, or just slap a {{fact}} tag on it. -RunningOnBrains 20:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have added several citation needed tags in the article. Please address those. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of the {{fact}} tags aside one, which I must take issue with. It seems to me that it's common knowledge that dust kicked up by the winds of the parent thunderstorm, heavy rain and hail, and the darkness of night can make tornadoes impossible to see. I don't really see why that needs a citation. I suppose I could dig one up if you really think it needs one. -RunningOnBrains 07:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I peer-reviewed this article and I still think that it needs more references, specifically print sources WP:ATT. There must be a lot of published research on tornadoes, so surely some of your research should come from the scientific literature? Also, I also still think that the "Further Reading" section could be expanded. If it is only going to have one book, you might as well delete it. Also, there seem to be an excessive number of internal wikipedia links and external links - can you prune just a bit? I am almost ready to support this article. As I said in the peer-review, I do think it is quite good (and, by the way, I also think the images are very instructive). Awadewit 09:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went to the library today, and ordered as many good books as I could on Inter-library loan...unfortunately they wont be here til end of next week. Not sure if you just want to wait it out until then, but I will get more print resources in the article.
Also, I'm not sure if you have noticed, but most of my sources are NOAA, AMS, or other official government (US and international) sources. I'm pretty sure these are just as good, if not better, than print sources. Additionally, I did prune the external links a bit, let me know if you think more need to go.-RunningOnBrains 07:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice that. I know that those are reliable sources but websites change over time which can make it difficult to be sure that the information you cited is still there and asking readers to dig up cached versions is, in my opinion, needlessly time consuming. Awadewit 08:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good point. While I'm sure I will not be able to find a print source for everything, I am sure that I can get rid of about half of the online refs. It may take me a week or more, though, since I don't actually have books to work with yet. -RunningOnBrains 09:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that everything has to have a print source. I would think that definitions and the basic descriptive facts would, though. I love ILL, don't you? Awadewit 10:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment... Sorry about my recent absence...First, I was waiting to receive print sources from other libraries (which I now have), secondly, my computer was self-destructing, but I believe I have it in tip-top shape right now. I will start work on the article first thing tomorrow. -RunningOnBrains 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Runningonbrains, I believe you accidentally substituted the Template:cite book using {{subtst:cite book|...}}. I have changed this. --Kevinkor2 21:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconspicuous section break[edit]

I believe most-to-all of the concerns have been addressed. I am awaiting comments. -RunningOnBrains 02:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This is an excellent article. It is well-written, comprehensive and reliably-sourced. I feel that it is accessible to the general reader and its illustrations help the reader understand the text. There are just a few minor details that need to be fixed: 1) Not all of the notes are formatted exactly the same way; 2) The "Further Reading" can be removed since the book is cited in the notes; 3) There are still too many external links for my taste (this is less important than the first two). Awadewit 02:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, the article now has book citations as demanded previously. The image in "Continuing research" section is creating a conspicuous white blank space. Either the content of that section should be increased, or the image removed (elsewhere?). The image can be shifted down to the right of the list in "See also". Any other idea? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I may have made it better, I just removed the {{clear}} and the commons and portal boxes. -RunningOnBrains 18:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article, informative, interesting, visually appealing. Just address the single citation needed template that is still there in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Beautiful article, I like the images, but there are more than a few points that need correction, and while many are trivial, some are serious. Will happily support if you fix them.
    • Detection section apparently only describes the United States (local Weather Forecast Office...). Since you say right at the top that most tornadoes are in the US, that's not fatal, but it would still be nice to mention what other countries do. If you don't have time to do that, then at least specify that this addresses detection in the US, and not elsewhere. The Prediction section is much better for that - how about merging the two?
      • At one point Prediction and Detection was one section, but peer review advised a split. I thought they worked better as one long section, so if there's support to change it back I'd be glad to. -RunningOnBrains 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tornado/archive1 and don't quite see that's such an explicit recommendation. Anyway, if you can say something about detection by other countries, that will do. If the same agencies do both detection and prediction, then a merge does seem called for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess it was discussion outside of peer review. Regardless, I'll get on merging the two. -RunningOnBrains 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Upon further investigation I really can't find a way to cleanly merge these two sections. I have put them one after the other at least, I hope this is enough. -RunningOnBrains 01:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • All right, if you can't, you can't, but you can do these things:
                1. In trying to merge, you renamed the section to "Prediction and detection" ... which is still followed by "Detection". If the first section doesn't cover both, it shouldn't be named as if it does.
                2. In the Detection section, specify that the Weather Forecast Offices and National Weather Service refer to the US only.
                3. In the United States and a few other countries, doppler weather radar stations are used, mainly in the United States, - take one of the US's from here. If you can, specify the other countries and/or cite this sentence, in case someone wants to know the other countries. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though scientists have learned much from years of research, there are still many things about tornadoes which remain a mystery. - sounds like a children's textbook. Rephrase, and, if there are that many mysteries, list several of the important ones.
    • Research programs, including VORTEX - since that's a red link, you need to at least give a few words about what that acronym means
    • May 3, 1999 - wikilink per WP:DATE
    • there are precautions and preventative measures that you can take - Wp:mos#Avoid_second-person_pronouns
      • I strongly oppose this change. Rules are meant to be applied logically; they are not meant to be blindly followed. Since this is safety guideline, it should most definitely be "you." Readers remember instructions in the second-person - they believe it applies to them. Safety instructions given in the third person apply to someone else - "them." Awadewit 15:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. That's not guideline, that's policy. If you make it third person, we can at least argue that we aren't giving instructions, we're discussing what such instructions issued by reputable third party sources usually say, which is a legitimate topic related to tornadoes. If you keep it second person, we're pretty clearly giving instructions, which is against our policy, and opens up a huge can of worms with liability, etc. Yes, it's a fine point, but FAs should be a model for other articles to follow, spotless, as close to perfect as we can get them. Blatantly violating not only WP:MOS, but also WP:NOT, both in the same sentence, is not good. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you might as well delete the whole section because third-person is a pretty thin leg to stand on, in my opinion. If I were a lawyer, I wouldn't buy it. Awadewit 16:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You clearly haven't looked at how much lawyers will buy :-). Anyway, look at, say, Chess#Rules or Chess#Strategy_and_tactics (a featured article, by the way) to see how we can talk about instructions, without giving instructions. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm afraid I know all too well. Anyway, I believe chess would be a false analogy. No one dies in chess. BTW, the second-person "guideline" is not a policy. Awadewit 16:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:MOS is a guideline, WP:NOT is a policy, I thought that's what I wrote. Influenza#Prevention may be a closer analogy, also a FA talking about health and safety instructions, but not strictly giving them. If you write that's a false analogy since no one gets blown hundreds of yards by a sneeze, I'll give up. :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Don't make me separate you two.  :-P I really don't see how anything is lost by changing the "you" to "people". The point of the section is not to give instructions, it is to describe precautions which save lives, as recommended by official sources. Plus, it's a very unencyclopedic thing to do...i can't see EB giving its readers instructions. So I changed it. -RunningOnBrains 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. -RunningOnBrains 00:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • North America - wikilink
    • List of Canadian Tornadoes - lower case T
    • The See Also list is long, and its inclusion criteria are not obvious. Why is NLM cityhopper individually in the see also? Presumably we have dozens of articles about individual tornadoes, why this one specifically? Why are dust devil, supercell listed here, but waterspout, landspout and others from the Definitions section not? I'd remove the redundancies, to shorten the list.
    • "Tornadoes are the most violent weather events in the world. As such, they have been recorded to produce some incredible phenomena." - debatable, and meaningless. Hurricanes arguably do more damage as they usually cover more area, and lightning bolts clearly do more damage to the much smaller area they actually hit and can start tremendous forest fires. Let the facts speak for themselves. Strike.
    • Worldwide, most tornadoes occur in the late afternoon, between the hours of 3 and 7 pm local time, with a peak near 5 pm.[34][35][36][37][38] - Yikes! Sure, you need one or two cites for this, but five? How about moving or sharing some with the earlier paragraph "Other areas of the world that have more frequent strong tornadoes" which doesn't have any citations at all?
      • I believe the number of refs is necessary to backup the statement's condition: "worldwide". No source I could find mentioned tornado climatology worldwide, but for each individual area I was able to find mentioned the same time. I cannot back up the statement without using that number of refs. I have consolidated the two previous paragraphs to be verifiable.-RunningOnBrains 03:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I'll accept that. Can you still cite the list of "other areas of the world" sentence? If you have to, just repeat your 5 links... :-) --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. -RunningOnBrains 18:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now I'm down to nitpicking, but I followed that link you gave to the NCDC, and it seems to refer to the Encyclopedia Brittanica for that bit about other countries; the EB article does seem to have more for that. Can you change to that link? --12:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "de facto official" ? What does that mean? How about "authoritative" or some other word? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak object until the following are dealt with:
    1. Find a reference for the "popular terms".
    2. The third paragraph of #Definitions is funky, and sounds almost too choppy. "A funnel cloud is a low-hanging vertically rotating cloud, with no associated strong winds at the surface." -> are you sure the comma goes there? It just sounds wrong to the "inner ear", if you want to call it that. "Funnel clouds are not tornadoes, and not all funnel clouds evolve into a tornado." -> should it be "not all funnel clouds evolve into tornadoes"? Wikilink "pressure, by the way.
    3. "Stronger tornadoes are most observed to have multiple vortices," -> Most is awkward there. You mean "Most stronger tornadoes are observed" or "Most multiple vortices are observed in stronger tornadoes"?
    4. Reference needed for the 6-24 hr definition of a tornadic outbreak.
    5. Give a bit more info about waterspouts, then split the paragraph into waterspouts and fair weather waterspouts. Currently, the paragraph seems just like two paragraphs were combined into one by removing the space between them.
    6. Not a requirement, but a Doppler NEXRAD loop of the development of the hook echos would be extremely informative.
    7. Give a reference for 4-8pm, as you've given a reference for 3-7pm farther down the article. It actually said "late afternoon". Fixed. -RunningOnBrains 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    8. "here is mounting evidence, including DOW mobile radar images and eyewitness accounts, which suggest that most tornadoes have a clear, calm center with extremely low pressure, akin to the eye found in tropical cyclones." What is DOW? It's a mobile doppler weather radar unit. Have added wikilink. -RunningOnBrains 22:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    9. "Bangladesh and surrounding areas of eastern India suffer from tornadoes of equal severity to those in the US with more regularity than any other region in the world, however these occur with a greater recurrence interval, and tend to be under-reported due to the scarcity of media coverage in a third-world country." -> plural, again - should it be "third world countries".
    10. Give a reference for the time of the Gainesville Tornado. It is referenced in the linked article, but I provided a reference anyway. -RunningOnBrains 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have followed all recommendations above, aside from merging prediction and detection (I just don't see it working smoothly) and the bit about the waterspout paragraph (I believe that it is ok the way it is). -RunningOnBrains 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few of my points left, above. They'll minor, so I'll withdraw my objection, and will change to support if you fix those. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 12:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't find a reference for the 24-hour tornadic outbreak. Galway (1977) puts the definition of a small tornado outbreak at 6-10 tornadoes, but it doesn't indicate any time span. The slang terms have not been covered either; I was hoping Reference #8 contained them, but I couldn't find the book, as the reference itself is incomplete. While the other recommendations have been addressed (and I'm ok with not the waterspout, as it boils down to a matter of style preference), I'll hold the objection until those two concerns (plus the formatting of the reference) are addressed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did mean to remove the mention of the timeframe. It was another one of those things that was added by an another user without a reference that I never got around to deleting or referencing. As for slang terms, I'll get on it, but it looks like its going to have to be strewn with references to make it work. -RunningOnBrains 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further thought, I have decided to just omit the slang section...it's not really necessary anyway. -RunningOnBrains 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -RunningOnBrains 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Some more nit-picking: Wikilink units in the lede. While it is obvious what "mph" stands for, it should be linked once per article, and then at other points at your discretion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done -RunningOnBrains 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. More nit-picking: why is there a link to Wiktionary (wikt:cycle) instead of the corresponding article (cycle)? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because all of those articles are on specialized cycles and do not give a definition for cyclical, which is what the confused reader would need. If you think it should be changed I'll change it, but I think it's ok the way it is.-RunningOnBrains 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's fair enough. It's extremely minor anyways. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Tornado&oldid=1039226261"