Talk:Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1–3, 2024/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 13:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 00:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod: I will be reviewing this! Good work on it so far. Expect a finished review towards the later part of the week.

My initial comments regards the lead – it probably should be expanded more to cover the information in the article and also, per MOS:LEADCITE, some references should probably be removed, especially the ones that cover the information in the lead later in the article. ~ Tails Wx 00:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx, don’t expect a prompt reply from Sir MemeGod, he is taking an extended break according to his page. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

But if you’re referring to the two consecutive citations in the lead @Tails Wx; I don’t think we can remove one and keep the other because they deal with deaths in two separate regions. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Although I have moved those two to the info box. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 01:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde: I’ll note here that both citations can still be removed as a result, given that the casualties are backed up by sources later in the article and the fact that we can tally them up and include the overall total in the lead, which does not constitute original research nor need a reliable source (partially per WP:CALC). ~ Tails Wx 01:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll get to it on Monday, I have some somewhat-serious personal things going on, the "mid-December" is probably an overstatement. :) MemeGod _chat 02:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Now unfortunately @Tails Wx I’m not exactly the best at writing lead up sections for events like this. The last time I tried; I ended up getting a user warning message on my talk page (see User talk:Hurricane Clyde/Archive 1#August 2024). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Lead

• "which also included a derecho" – how about "along with a derecho"?
• Per MOS:NUMNOTES, "25 people were injured" probably needs the "25" to be spelled out as "twenty-five" or re-written without the numerical in front.
• "The event was given an outbreak intensity score of 28 points, ranking it as a significant tornado outbreak." – source? I don't see it listed anywhere later in the article either.
• I think mentioning the floods in the Northeastern United States as a result of the system should also be included in the lead as well – a sentence or two at the least.
• Adding to that point, the lead should be significantly expanded. It is broadly detailed in terms of the impacts it caused and where it affected; the lead is the summary and introduction of the article, so this lead is simply too short. I'd suggest adding how the system developed and its meteorological history in a shortened fashion, be more specific on the impacts it caused, and the aftermath of it (the casualties, the emergency response, etc.).
• Are you sure there's 86 tornadoes that occurred in total in the outbreak? I'm counting close to 100 that happened according to the list. If that isn't true, that needs to be clarified.
• I forgot to mention this earlier – while there are three deaths that are mentioned later in the article, the other two aren't (they were removed – I didn't look at the article closely) – both sources are KOCO and WHAS-TV. Still, these should be included further down in the "Non-tornadic effects" section and not the lead/infobox.

• Confirmed tornadoes

• Same thing from above – are there 86 tornadoes in total or not?
• One of the two images placed on left-center of the "Watson, Indiana/Prospect–Brownsboro, Kentucky" section should probably be removed to avoid image clutter.

• Copyright violations

• Earwig shows lots of close paraphrasing from sources in the public domain. While this does not constitute a serious copyright violation, it requires attribution. As such, I've placed attribution tags on the main two sources that are paraphrased from the most.

~ Tails Wx 04:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ll get to those Sunday evening probably. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 04:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we just co-nom this at this point? We clearly will both be working on it. :) MemeGod _chat 13:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I’ve got the first three parts done. Hopefully I’ll get to some of the remaining later tonight or on Monday. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Also @Tails Wx; I just counted all the tornado entries that are listed and I counted 86 (the same as is mentioned). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the OIS mention; as that score only recently come out in 2023, and likely hasn’t been picked up by that many sources. And I think it might be mentioned in the list of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score anyways. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Correction: it’s two points short of inclusion criteria there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod @Tails Wx; I’ve probably wrote out my expansion (of the lead) a little bit sloppy, still trying to perfect my prose-writing skills. But I have expanded the lead a bit. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 06:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: All issues have appeared to be addressed, I just sectioned out what Clyde had already done. :) MemeGod _chat 13:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend that @Sir MemeGod look at the non-tornadic section and make sure that my mention of the five deaths was in the right place. Remember that they weren’t related to the tornadoes; and I think all or most of them drowned. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do. Sir MemeGod _chat 16:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be in the right place, I just reworded it a bit. :) Sir MemeGod _chat 16:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx, I’ve removed the one cluttering image. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice work, EF5 and Hurricane Clyde! I still think the lead could be expanded since it's a bit short given the length of the rest of the article. Also, in the "Non-tornadic effects" section, the section states that there were five fatalities while also stating later on the specifics of three of them in the Northeastern United States. There's two ways this can go here: either include the specifics of the other two deaths and remove the "Five people died from non-tornadic effects relating to the storm system" part, or the opposite. Otherwise, not too bad; don't expect a finished review until at least the end of the week though as I'm really busy in terms of schoolwork during these next few days. ~ Tails Wx 00:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Don’t worry. That gives me and @EF5 more time to clean up the lead. I’ll probably be on a short Wikibreak on Tuesday; and will hopefully be back on Wednesday to help. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: All issues have been addressed. EF⁵ 13:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Review

Prose

Lots of prose to be cleaned up here.

For the lead

• "From April 1 to 3, 2024, a significant tornado outbreak, along with a derecho, affected much of the Midwestern and Southeastern United States." – would recommend rewriting this to "A significant tornado outbreak, along with a derecho, affected much of the Midwestern and Southeastern United States from April 1 to 3, 2024."

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The National Weather Service issued dozens of severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings across West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Oklahoma, Kansas, Illinois, Indiana, and Missouri during the event." – we don't really need to include the specific states that were placed under the warnings. As the locations that are impacted are included in the precedinng sentence, shortening this to something like "The National Weather Service issued dozens of severe thunderstorm and tornado warnings across those regions during the event".

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Following those points above, I think the first two paragraphs could be merged together

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "where the derecho occurred." – can you be more specific on where this happened and progressed, as well as the timing for it? It's useful to provide some context for readers

Y Done, "April 2" is positioned a few words prior, talking about the derecho. E_F⁵ 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• The lead is still a bit short considering the length of the article after implementing these changes. I'd consider adding some of the meteorological history that led up to the outbreak and derecho happening

Y Done. E_F⁵ 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Meteorological synopsis

• "a broad Enhanced Risk existed" – how about "spanned" instead of "existed" as the SPC highlighted that risk over quite a widespread area?

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "A conditional threat of strong/EF2+ tornadoes existed too" – poor wording choice here, how about "strong, EF2+ tornadoes also was noted"?

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Even farther to the northeast" – "further"

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "across the St. Louis metropolitan area, contributing to large hail" – "producing", to avoid repetition with "contributing"

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "the squall line interacted with boundaries produced by earlier storms" – while I'm aware of how tornadogenesis occurs with boundary interaction, it's best to provide context here. Some points to consider are: what are these boundaries? How did they contribute to the tornadic activity along the QLCS?

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "On April 1, the SPC issued a category 4/Moderate risk across much of Ohio and adjacent portions of surrounding states" – for what day? The next day? Context needed here as well.

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "across Alabama and Georgia, contributing to additional tornadoes" – how about "which contributed to additional tornadoes there"?

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Into April 3, additional severe weather occurred along frontal boundaries from Florida to Virginia before activity pushed offshore" – this could be re-worded better, something along the lines of "Additional severe weather occurred along frontal boundaries across several states from Florida to Virginia on April 3 before activity behind offshore".

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed tornadoes

Looks mostly good, but some of the tornado descriptions probably needs some expansions and consistent with others. For context, it should be the ones that are very short with only the damages being noted, e.g. "Numerous trees were uprooted." or "Minor tree damage occurred.". There's only a few of these, so those should be easy enough to take care of, in my opinion.

N The summaries look fine to me, see List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 (which is a FL) that follows desc conventions similar to this.

Watson, Indiana/Prospect–Brownsboro, Kentucky

• "The tornado then quickly intensified to EF1 strength as it crossed SR 62 and moved through Watson. It knocked over three tractor trailers on SR 62 and uprooted some trees." – these sentences could probably be combined, "through Watson, knocking over three tractor-trailers on SR 62 and uprooting some trees".

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In Brookhollow, many garage doors were blown out, windows were broken, brick facade crumbled, trees were uprooted, and large sections of roofs were blown off structures." – to avoid repetition, "many" could be changed to "numerous"; this could be done here or the next sentence

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "as it moved into Prospect and struck the Beechland Beach neighborhood" – link Prospect, Kentucky and Beechland Beach, Louisville here

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Three well-built two-story homes suffered significant roof damage, had broken windows" – probably remove "had" here

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "as the EF2 Buckner tornado was forming to the north." – we either need more context or don't need to be necessarily specific here, just "as another EF2 tornado was forming to the north" would be good

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Non-tornadic effects

This is the section I'm mainly concerned about in terms of prose.

• "Heavy flooding in the Midwest was observed in the days leading up to the outbreak, mainly March 31." – flooding doesn't need to be linked here, we will need more context as to how this contributed to the non-tornadic effects there. Was it the saturated soil that stemmed from the past heavy rainfall?

Y Done, wasn't particularly relevant so I removed it.

• "Many areas of Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia were put on flood watches and flash flood warnings" – yeah, that needs to be re-worded

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Ground-to-cloud lightning was observed throughout the entire outbreak" – if we're going to include this, why is this significant? Again, readers need context for this.

Y Done, was removed. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "In Carthage, Missouri, which is northeast of Joplin, straight-line wind damage was reported". Remove "which is"; since there was a derecho, was there other straight-line wind damage reported in other areas outside of Carthage? If so, that'll need to be included.

Y I don't believe so, from what I could find.. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Winds gusted up to 100 mph (160 km/h) during that event." – probably needs to be re-worded, something like "The derecho itself caused widespread wind gusts of up to 100 mph (160 km/h) during the event."

Y Done, appears to have been fixed. E_F⁵ 15:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Power poles were broken, and trees were snapped as a direct result of these storms." – I mean, this is kinda obvious that this sort of damage occurred, but could we provide the extent of this damage happening? More severe impacts, possibly?

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Ground scouring was also observed in parts of Central Oklahoma." – don't see this supported in a spotcheck.

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "with up to 17 in (43 cm) of snow in Wisconsin" – including "falling", "snow falling in Wisconsin".

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "Five people died from non-tornadic effects relating to the storm system." – with the deaths already included later on, I don't think this is needed

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "with even more rain in Newark, New Jersey" – how about "with even heavier rainfall totals in Newark, New Jersey"? And it'd be even helpful if there is an exact rainfall total there.

Y Done, couldn't find one. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• " On April 2, two people were fatally crushed by fallen trees in Pennsylvania. Another fatality occurred in New York on April 3 due to downed trees. The same day in Pennsylvania, two more people died in separate incidents when downed trees fell on the vehicle they occupied." – the incidents in Pennsylvania are repeated here. The other deaths reported here and here aren't noted here, apparently.

Y Done, added. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "The University of Kentucky campus in Lexington suffered minor damage from high winds, and afternoon classes and on-campus activities were canceled. The Scioto Audubon Metro Park was completely flooded." – this paragraph could be merged into the first paragraph, in my opinion

Y Done, unfortunately I wasn't able to go to Scioto to get an image for the article while it was flooded, but oh well. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

Lots of formatting issues here. Also needs a lot of clarification:

• "The tornado outbreak was historic in West Virginia according to the National Weather Service. Their Charleston office stated that "The 17 confirmed tornadoes are the most tornadoes for any calendar day and event on record for the NWS Charleston County Warning Area. The previous record was 6 tornadoes on April 4, 1974. To further put this number into perspective, the previous record number of tornadoes for an entire calendar year over the NWS Charleston County Warning Area was 11 set in 1980, and it took 7 different days with tornadoes to reach that number." – needs re-wording; with less quoting

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "At around 4:10 pm on April 2, the state of Kentucky issued a state of emergency" – no need for specific time, "On the afternoon of April 2" would be ok

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• "and several counties in West Virginia also qualified for individual assistance from FEMA" – in what way?

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Expanding this section a bit is useful but optional

Images

One of the SPC outlooks from the meteorological synopsis section should probably be removed or placed to the right; placing both of them at left-hand seems awkward. Also, the hail pic is questionable for me -- not sure if it should be included there as it doesn't seem to describe the non-tornadic effects well. Also, "mid-size" – the hail in the picture doesn't appear to be larger than at least quarters, so that's sub-severe limits.

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

References and spotchecks

• What's and how is edhat reliable here? (FN 114)

Y Done, was removed. E_F⁵ 15:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• " Ground-to-cloud lightning was observed throughout the entire outbreak. In Carthage, Missouri, which is northeast of Joplin, straight-line wind damage was reported. Winds gusted up to 100 mph (160 km/h) during that event. Power poles were broken, and trees were snapped as a direct result of these storms. Ground scouring was also observed in parts of Central Oklahoma. In West Virginia, there were dozens of reports of straight-line wind damage along with the tornadoes. A wind gust of 92 mph (148 km/h) was recorded at Tri-State Airport in Huntington, West Virginia, which set an all-time record for that station." – none of this is supported by FNs 15 and 115.

Y Done, removed. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Some references are not formatted correctly (e.g. FNs 14, 126).

Y Done. E_F⁵ 15:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That's all I got! Sorry for the review being a little late, it's been a very busy school month so far. Lots of prose issues but I think most should be taken care of pretty easily. ~ Tails Wx 15:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I am going to ping @EF5 over here so that he can read this and take some of this action (especially pertaining to the lead expansion) too. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently working on it, I think we both got to it at exactly the same time (hence the edit conflict twice in a row). E_F⁵ 17:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Also @Tails Wx, the 92 mph part is supported by FN 15; you didn’t read the lead section in the NWS reference. As for the other part; I agree that the ground scouring part may not be supported; and the cloud-to-ground-lightning part is likely too trivial to be included anyway. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: How does it look now? I believe I've addressed everything. :) E_F⁵ 16:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I've made some minor fixes around the article (apart from merging the "Aftermath" section into the "Non-tornadic effects" section – see my explanation here), but overall, it looks good to be promoted to a GA. Nice work to both of you! ~ Tails Wx 03:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.