Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Cullman–Arab tornado
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 02:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
2011 Cullman–Arab tornado
- ... that five out of the six fatalities from the 2011 Cullman–Arab tornado occurred in one house?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ferrari FF
- Comment: Although the source is a bit hard to navigate, the DAT (Damage Assessment Toolkit) is produced by the United States Government, and is overwhelmingly considered reliable.
EF5 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC).
- Also, forgot to add an ALT1; ... that five out of the six people killed in the 2011 Cullman–Arab tornado were members of the same family? Source on this can be found here. EF5 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- Haha, it's always great to see fellow weather enthusiasts! This is one of the more interesting tornadoes I've written about, and definitely one of the more infamous. :) EF5 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I picked up on a couple issues during my read-through of the article, and will have to hold off on a fuller review until these are addressed. The second paragraph in §Track_through_Cullman is unsourced, as is the final sentence in that section. Additionally, the second paragraph in §Fairview_and_Hulaco states that a home was completely destroyed at high-end EF4 intensity – this doesn't corroborate with the tornado's stated peak intensity of 175 mph, which is near the middle of the EF4 range. Everything else looks promising so far: both hooks are short, interesting, and cited (though I personally prefer ALT1); a QPQ has been done; and the article is both new enough and long enough, not to mention well-written. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Dylan620: Issues have been addressed. EF5 13:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Much appreciated, EF5. My apologies for the late response – today was busier IRL than I had expected, and I've been having troubles with internet connection at home throughout the day. I am a little concerned that ref 10 (OKC Storm Watcher) is a WordPress blog. I am open to being proven wrong, but the blog appears to fall short of the standards set forth at WP:RSBLOG and WP:EXPERTSPS. The same could be said for ref 23 (AlabamaWX) – however, this seems to be an uncontroversial and harmless archival of a Public Information Statement from the National Weather Service, so I'm not quite as concerned here. Source-text integrity checks out—I am assuming good faith wrt Cullman Times refs 15, 22, and 24, which are dead links—and I cannot detect any instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. (High returns on Earwig are false positives resulting from the use of properly attributed public domain text.) I would like for ref 10 to be replaced, or its use justified, before approving the nomination, but that is the only roadblock at this point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- Haha, it's always great to see fellow weather enthusiasts! This is one of the more interesting tornadoes I've written about, and definitely one of the more infamous. :) EF5 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
