Talk:April 2, 2006 Tornado Outbreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Severe weather, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to severe weather. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Severe weather.

April 2, 2006 Tornado Outbreak was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: November 8, 2006

	Kentucky Portal April 2, 2006 Tornado Outbreak is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. Template Usage • Change Patrol • Articles Requested! • Become a Member • Project Talk
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

Contents 1 Better outbreak name? 1.1 Renaming likely 1.2 Scott County, KY "landspout" 2 2Apr ID tor from this system 3 GA failed

[edit] Better outbreak name?

I made that name just for the lack of a better name. (It would change to Early-April 2006 if another one happens later in April) CrazyC83 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Keep it until we have another April outbreak (later this week?), or a widely used public nickname for this outbreak. —BazookaJoe 04:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, that outbreak (April 5-7) could be not article-worthy, like last Thursday's moderate outbreak. I don't want to be making up nicknames, so we should either use dates (but not specific days like April 2, 2006 unless it is absolutely necessary) or geographic areas in naming outbreaks. CrazyC83 04:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a little soon to be putting up lists of tornadoes? I know that in Indiana and Illinois the NWS won't be sending out survey teams till later on today. Devildiva 13:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's best to keep track ahead of time. If they are confirmed to be false, they get removed. New confirmations get added. The F? signifies a tornado that has yet to be officially confirmed. CrazyC83 15:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was just curious, since it had just happened yesterday. I checked Indianapolis' NWS site, where they stated that the suspected tornado in Marion county was likely straight-line winds. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/crnews/display_story.php?wfo=ind&storyid=2089&source=0I left the page alone, since it's only a preliminary assessment and I didn't want to mess up the format.Devildiva 18:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I already removed that one after it was found to have been false. CrazyC83 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming likely

Since another major outbreak is expected later this week, should an article be required for that, this could either become the April 2, 2006 Tornado Outbreak (and that one the April 6, 2006 Tornado Outbreak) or the Marmaduke-Newbern Tornado Outbreak (and that the (location of main action) Tornado Outbreak).

(The terms Early, Mid and Late cannot be used, since it would still be the first week of April - those are the prefered terms; Early-month between 1st and 10th, Mid-month between 11th and 20th and Late-month between 21st and 31st of a month) CrazyC83 23:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I like "April 2006 Tornado Outbreak #2" - and we can create a disambiguation page to help sort things out. Now to see about weather proofing my camera... Rklawton 00:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The number sign cannot be added, so the date will have to be used - this would be moved to April 2 2006 Tornado Outbreak, with April 2006 Tornado Outbreaks (plural) as a disambiguation page, once the article is necessary. The new outbreak would go in April 6-7 2006 Tornado Outbreak CrazyC83 18:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott County, KY "landspout"

There was a video taken of a very brief "landspout" near Georgetown KY. Any idea how that might be classified? (NWS hasn't put out official report on it yet) Brando03 April 5

It's hard to say. Brief mention should be made, but if it is not classified as a tornado, it should not be in the chart. CrazyC83 20:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2Apr ID tor from this system

This system spawned copious deep convection across CA, NV, and ID. There were many SVR warnings and a couple TORs, at least one tornado did touch down. http://www.ktvb.com/ Evolauxia 04:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, that's from the system that would produce the outbreak on today. Evolauxia 05:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm trying to think about how to rename this, since in all likelihood, an article will be needed for today and tomorrow's outbreak. (We have a 2 or 3-day outbreak coming it seems) CrazyC83 18:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

As of 8 November 2006, per WP:WIAGA, I failed this article for GA status, per following issues:

• (1.a) - the prose is not good enough. It needs some copyediting from somebody who is not familiar with the subject. I found some long sentences that are better to be chopped into 2-3 small but crisp sentences. For example in this sentence: "Farther north, the initial thunderstorm development in eastern Missouri quickly developed into a squall line, eventually becoming a derecho that produced many embedded - and generally weak - tornadoes and widespread wind damage across Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio. Springfield, Illinois, which was struck by two tornadoes less than a month earlier, was hit again by tornadoes and damaging straight-line winds of up to 80 mph (129 km/h), as was the St. Louis, Missouri area.". I found also others in the article.
• (1.c) :
  • per Wikipedia:Embedded_list, the article contains lengthly list in Confirmed Tornadoes section, that should be moved separately as list article. Just introduce the tornado outbreak occurs in several cities simultaneously and point as wikilink to the list of the tornado outbreak.
  • per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images, avoid gallery and instead use interwikilink to Commons with template {{Commons}}. Anyway, most of the images are located in Commons.
  • there are some orphaned sentences that should be merged with other paragraphs.
• (1.d) - there are technical jargons that should be briefly explained, though it is wikilink, to help a non-specialist reader to understand the article easily without clicking to other articles. For instances: supercell, long hail, squal lines, derecho, etc.
• (2.a) - there are some unsourced facts. I've put some tags there to fill its source.
• (2.b) - citation style in the References section does not conform with WP:CITE. The list of sources at the bottom of the table are given as embedded link, while others are given as footnote. Please make a consistent citation style, per WP:CITE.
• (3.a) - the subject is Tornado Outbreak in several cities in U.S. simultaneously at that date. However, there is little information about the tornado description in all of those cities. Putting as a list is not enough, as I've explained above. The meteorogical history of the tornado is also not given, illustrated by maps. I think there a lot of freely available maps for this event in U.S. governmental sites, similar with other meteorogical articles.

Conclusion: my main concern is the heavy list. So I failed this article for GA for the moment. When the above issues are resolved, then the article can be renominated back. If you disagree with my reviews above, you can always ask for re-review in WP:GA/R. Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)