Jump to content

Talk:Late December 2012 North American storm complex

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tstorm123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

[edit]

Should we include the tornado(s) from December 26 as well? They're really part of the same system, although they didn't happen on Christmas, per se. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is due to the worst activity occurring on Christmas. We did the same thing with the 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak even though there was activity on the 28. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in blizzard?

[edit]

So, the blizzard and the tornado outbreak were both from the same meteorological system. Should they be merged? Right now the blizzard article is pretty scant right now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The blizzard affected enough areas that, with some work, it could be quickly expanded. I think a link and maybe a paragraph about the outbreak in the blizzard article would work. It would take a lot of condensing for this to fit in that article. United States Man (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it's the same meteorological event, so shouldn't they be together? It'd be OK if it was a big article. 2009 North American Christmas blizzard - this article has both tornado and blizzard in the same article, ditto North American blizzard of 2008 and 1993 Storm of the Century. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you would look at those articles, they all had fewer than 20 tornadoes and no information about the individual tornadoes whatsoever. That list easily fits into a blizzard article. This is different. Once surveys are finished there could be nearly 30 tornadoes, which is way to big to be merged. Then you have the "Most significant tornadoes" section that we would have to figure out what to do with. By the time it was done, the blizzard article would be primarily about the outbreak anyway so there is really no reason to merge it. Maybe if it was only a few tornadoes it would be easier to merge. United States Man (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be putting in a paragraph about the outbreak at some point. I also need to add some of that into the blizzard's MH section. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given how short the blizzard article is, and again, since they were the same meteorological system, should the two articles be merged? It is now after the fact for there to be proper analysis. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is still no, per my comments above. United States Man (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as an update, the blizzard article was merged into this, and the title was changed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Christmas tornado outbreak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) 04:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I'm in the process of reviewing this article. I haven't made any decision yet, but I'll be adding comments as I go along. Here goes:

  • The first sentence is very awkward. It's trying to be both a descriptive summary and an historical marker, but it does the introduction more harm than good. Also, the mention of "severe weather" is vague; do you mean literally just the tornadoes?
  • Overall, the lead is short and not very informative. I would identify the most notable tornadoes, perhaps include a brief synoptic blurb, and talk about a little aftermath. Something for everyone.
  • Meteorologically, a strong upper tropospheric trough dug southeast into Texas from the Rocky Mountains on the evening of the 24th, becoming a powerful, negatively tilted shortwave trough at the 500 millibar (500 hPa) level on December 25. - This is overly complicated for what it's trying to accomplish, and in addition I don't think the given source backs most of it up. First, I wouldn't say "Meteorologically" but rather "synoptically" or the like. More importantly, the whole line is clunky to the point of probably inaccuracy. "Upper tropospheric" could simply be "upper-level", which is much more widely understood; the tilt of the s/w isn't particularly to the evolution of the tornado outbreak, so I wouldn't bother with it; and I'm really unsure about an upper trough becoming a s/w. I would definitely look into that.
  • Strong advection of warm and moist air near the surface occurred from Houston to Mobile and areas inland on the morning of December 25 as a synoptic warm front formed to the east of the surface low. - More examples. You don't have to talk about advection or the synoptic scale, where "Warm, moist air flowed northward along the warm front extending east from the surface low" would work fine.
  • I would make some mention of CAPE and any other major values you see fit.
  • Later in the afternoon, enough instability and ascent associated with the advancing shortwave trough allowed for the formation of discrete supercell storms ahead of the advancing squall line in Louisiana, southern Mississippi, and southern Alabama. - More showy language for little gain. "Instability and ascent" could be "energy". "Discrete supercell storms" should be much simpler, like "standalone supercells". Almost every sentence has this issue in the met. history.
  • "A mobile home lost its exterior walls two houses had trees fall on them." - ?
  • "McNeill Tornado on radar with a debris ball" - Most people don't know what a debris ball is.
  • For $140m in damage to Mobile, you should be able to build a much more solid and extensive section on impacts there. This brings me to my next point: the article is severely lacking due to a lack of NCDC reports. When they come out in several months, they'll likely have sheer pages and pages of damage info that you haven't seen yet. You don't need every report, but their absence is noticeable.

Overall, I feel the article has a couple overarching issues. The first is the article's attempt at sounding meteorologically advanced without an actual grasp on the meteorology. In other words, I see many extremely obscure terms thrown together in dubious order. Another is a lack of sources, and by extension a somewhat shaky account of damages. Also, the prose is somewhat weak, but that can be overcome once the content is good. Sadly, I don't think these issues are fixable within just days, so I feel I have to fail this GAN nom. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and happy new year to the author. Juliancolton (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2012 Christmas tornado outbreak/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gilderien (talk · contribs) 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Initial Thoughts

[edit]

I first read through the article and see if there is anything that jumps out at me, and note it down to be fixed. I also check to see if any references are dead. For example:

  • All the kalb.com and wktg.com references are dead.
  • File:McNeill Tornado.png is missing.
  • The table requires inline citations for each row.
  • All the maximum width column is empty - populate or remove.

--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 13:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to tell you that when I get time, I will look at getting those citations done. I will do some right now. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, could you tick ({{Done}}) when you have addressed my individual points :) --Gilderien Chat|Contributions 03:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since over a week has passed, and most of these issues have not been addressed, and the nominator has been active elsewhere, I am failing this review. --Gilderien Chat|Contributions 05:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado table

[edit]

It looks a bit awkwardly wide at this point now that the Damage and reference columns are back in. Do we really need those columns in there? There's nothing really outstanding about any of the max widths that seem to support putting that in (unless United States Man has more to add), and we can always just include damage amounts in the Summary column. I'd also put all of the references at the end of the summary to make it look better. Looking at the articles for all of the tornado outbreak articles for 2013, none had their own damage or reference columns, and most of the other 2012 articles didn't have Max Width columns, so that one might be able to be removed as well. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TAWX13 and myself have added a few more columns to the table (the refs were his idea). To be consistent, these and any new ones will be having all of the columns. United States Man (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was there ever a discussion in WP:SEVERE to add the reference column? I would rather not have such a column, and any such addition of a column should be agreed on by the whole project. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussion here. United States Man (talk) 05:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you; I missed that (I had been skimming through and paying attention mostly to headings). There doesn't seem to be too much consensus there, and the discussion is a bit stale now, so I'll start up a new one over there to see what the project thinks. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not finished with the table. I've got damage totals, widths, and refs to add in from NCDC. I will hopefully be finished by or during the weekend. I'm trying to do too many things at once here on Wikipedia. United States Man (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total damage calculation

[edit]

Where did we get the >$150 million from? Inks.LWC (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd. NCDC only lists $9.433 million. United States Man (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where was that? Inks.LWC (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to the NCDC Storm Events and select tornadoes for the 25th and 26th. It is the total at the bottom of the damage column. Although, this is only for the tornadoes and does not include the blizzard part. United States Man (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't imagine the blizzard would have caused that much, so we can probably just use "at least" and that figure. At least until we get something more concrete. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was able to get the file for the whole year, and per WP:CALC, it should be fine. I came up with 131,091,700 for the American costs. I can post the spreadsheet if that would be helpful. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that posting the spreadsheet would help. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Late December 2012 North American storm complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Late December 2012 North American storm complex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Late_December_2012_North_American_storm_complex&oldid=1203503336"