Talk:2007 Greensburg tornado

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Why is only one tornado included in the article, I thought more tornadoes happened? A1: Although eleven tornadoes did touch down as part of the tornado family, ten of those are considered satellite tornadoes, and are not considered their "own" tornadoes. Because of this, they do not have their own tornado summaries. Q2: The source that I found says that ten people died, why does this page say eleven? A2: The fatalities caused as a result of the tornado are disputed, with some sources saying ten and others saying eleven. However, National Weather Service publications conclude that eleven died, and so that is the generally accepted number of deaths.

	2007 Greensburg 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.
	2007 Greensburg tornado is part of the Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 series, a good topic. It is also part of the Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 series, a good topic. These are identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve them, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 23, 2024 Good article nominee Listed January 4, 2025 Good topic candidate Promoted January 5, 2025 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Top-importance). Kansas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes Section size for 2007 Greensburg tornado (25 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 6,799 6,799 Meteorological synopsis 3,293 4,435 Greensburg supercell development 1,142 1,142 Tornado summary 23 16,269 Formation and track towards Greensburg 3,841 3,841 Impact in Greensburg 5,770 5,770 Satellite tornadoes 5,218 5,218 Later tornadoes 343 1,417 Greensburg-Trousdale-Lewis, Kansas 1,074 1,074 Aftermath 3,001 18,811 Damage to homes 2,103 2,103 Greensburg High School 973 973 Delmer Day Elementary School 904 904 Kiowa County Memorial Hospital 978 978 Rebuilding efforts 6,342 6,342 Fatalities 3,918 3,918 Depiction in media 592 592 See also 541 541 Notes and footnotes 114 6,397 Notes 38 38 Footnotes 31 31 Sources 4,292 4,292 Further reading 25 1,922 Event studies 1,880 1,880 Aftermath 17 17 Total 53,252 53,252

A fact from 2007 Greensburg tornado appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the 2007 Greensburg tornado had ten smaller tornadoes orbiting it? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2007 Greensburg tornado.

Is the casualties box supposed to say 74 total? This doesn't align with what's in the article. 2600:1008:B18D:6FD8:88FD:50FF:FE38:210C (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, it is. 11 (deaths) plus the injury count equals the total casualties. I'll add it shortly regardless. E_F⁵ 13:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 Greensburg tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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):

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):

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

@Tomobe03: Are you still reviewing this? It's been six days. :) E_F⁵ 15:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for slow progress. I expect to complete the review and post here on Thursday (i.e. the day after tomorrow). Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (criterion 1a):

• In On May 4, a low stalled over the High Plains..., I assume "low" refers to Low-pressure area. I'm unsure if casual (and especially non-native) readers would be better off if it is spelled out and wikilinked.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done.

• Is it customary to write tornado wind speeds in m/s? I assumed, from non-UK European news coverage it would be km/h and 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado also uses km/h. I'm fine with either, but the common format should be used.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not usually. I'll get to your concerns tomorrow. :) E_F⁵ 21:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Fixed. E_F⁵ 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In ...over 0.5 miles (0.80 km) in diameter..., 0.80 km reads odd to me, I'd expect 800 m instead, but this is just my take and no dealbreaker here. No action required on this one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ...(which is the world's largest hand-dug well)... should not be here. Even if it were true, the claim is off-topic and the name is wikilinked to the article where such information would be available. Besides, the Big Well article says it is not the largest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Subsection Greensburg-Trousdale-Lewis, Kansas reads odd as almost everything is written as conditional. For example, instead of The tornado would then move past Fellsburg before almost impacting Trousdale., I'd expect "The tornado then moved past Fellsburg before almost impacting Trousdale." As it stands now, the sentence reads (to me) as if "The tornado normally moves past Fellsburg before almost impacting Trousdale." The same applies to few other sentences in the conditional as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, reworded. E_F⁵ 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues (criterion 1b):

• There are several instances of duplicate links, specifically wind shear; supercell; Kansas; National Weather Service; Dodge City, Kansas; mesocyclone. MOS:LINKONCE allows repetition except in a single section, so this is technically within the bounds of the criterion and needs no action here. I'm just pointing it out as a potential area for improvement.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Link the first instance of CDT in the prose.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, in the "Greensburg supercell development" section. E_F⁵ 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per MOS:CITELEAD non-contentious summaries presented in the lede need not have inline references. I see no reason to keep the four inline cites supporting the initial paragraph.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• According to WP:GALLERY, images should be distributed through sections if possible and they should not be repetitive. In that respect, one of the photos of the Greensburg High School should be kept and the other left out. I believe the same should apply to having two images of damaged homes (the second image adds very little to understanding of the article). And one more image could be moved from the gallery to the Aftermath section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y Just removed gallery, would be too complicating to distribute. Article has enough as-is. E_F⁵ 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The information on 250M economic loss seems to be missing from the prose (and is only found in the infobox). It would be better to include it in the prose as well (and reference there).--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y It's now found in the lede and "Damage" section. E_F⁵ 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: How's it look now? E_F⁵ 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about potential overuse of fair use images in the article per WP:NFCCP:

1. The "Trousdale tornado" image seems appropriate for the article on the specific tornado if there is one or another place where that tornado is primarily covered. List of tornadoes by width lists Trousdale tornado and redirects to Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Would it be fair to say that the tornado outbreak page is the primary coverage of Trousdale tornado and the non-free image would be better suited for that (and only that) page, or that the particular Greensburg tornado article section is the primary coverage of the Trousdale tornado and the list and outbreak links should redirect readers to that Greensburg tornado article section?

@Tomobe03: Due to circumstances and length, I'd say that this article has the primary coverage. The reason the "tornadoes by width" redirects there is because nobody's bothered to retarget it. E_F⁵ 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. What additional infomation is conveyed by the "2007 Greensburg wedge tornado" that the "Two satellite tornadoes" image does not already convey?

Other images have appropriate licences.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: Size of the tornado at its peak intensity, something the satellite image doesn't show. E_F⁵ 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that sounds reasonable. It seems to me that the nominator has provided sufficient justification for fair use of the images. Tomobe03 (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's copyvio detector reports 66% chance of copyvio (likely copyvio), but the result appears to be a false positive as the tool points to a piece of cited NOAA warning as the source of the purported violation. However, the quoted NOAA warning is clearly specified to be a direct quotation and supported by appropriate references, i.e. there appears to be no real copyvio.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot checks turned out fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since every GA criteria checklist item is ticked, the nomination is successful. Nice article!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quality review! Do you have User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool.js installed? It makes it easy to close nominations. :) E_F⁵ 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]