Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of June 3–11, 2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTornado outbreak sequence of June 3–11, 2008 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2008Good article nomineeListed
October 7, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Chicago suburbs[edit]

NWS Chicago is now reporting that they confirmed seven different tornadoes hit the Chicago suburbs yesterday, and that they'll be posting a set of track maps at about 5PM CDT today. (As a side note, I'm getting vague reports on the news of a weak tornado hitting the Flint suburbs today--55 years, to the day, after the Flint-Beecher tornado.) Rdfox 76 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 10[edit]

I would think that this would be the last day (MDT risk from Ontario to PA) for this article (as far as the severe weather activity, probably not the flooding) as all of this storminess will move out of the way. --JForget 13:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From this system at least it looks like it. Tomorrow's MDT is for a separate system. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On June 12th the Nebraska/Iowa areas got hit. I can't get a confirmed count of tornados from local news, but I think it could easily be included in this outbreak sequence.Cornhusker1225 (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's June 11th today and there are reports coming out of western Iowa of a Boy Scout camp getting hit by a tornado with fatalities. Tonight there is a whole line of storms from Minnesota to Oklahoma with tornado warnings up and down the line. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My god that night sucked, being stuck in a basement for 3 hours while the damned storms just sat there.--Jakezing (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be merged with June 2008 Midwest floods?[edit]

  1. The the same systems are responsible for each, in which case having one article is usually a WP Meteorology standard.
  2. Most of the Non-tornadic events section in this article is about the flooding.
  3. IMO, this article is kind of border-line for being article worthy. Yes, there have been 73 confirmed tornadoes so far which is above the general threshold, but that is over the course of a week (probably will end up being around 15-18 per day, which is far below). Only 2 of the tornadoes have been F3, and only 10 F2, which means that 61 out of the 73 have been weak tornadoes, and there have been no fatalities.

I guess what I'm saying is I think by itself this article is kind of non-notable, but if you add the flooding event in with it, that makes more sense to me. Thoughts? WxGopher (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should add the word derecho in the title, because there have been at least 3 major derecho events throught the time period, the one in the Middle Atlantic on June 4, the one in the central Plains on June 5 and the one in Michigan and Ontario on June 8. Other major near-derecho events included in Kansas on June 3, in Ohio on June 9 and in Quebec and upstate New York on June 10. As far for the tornadoes, there are still a lot of unconfirmed tornadoes left to be rated. I think most of the Kansas tornadoes were not rated, much of Missouri and central were still not rated as well as several in Iowa and possibly the Dakotas and elsewhere in the Midwest. This could easily exceed 100 tornadoes. JForget 12:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
73 tornadoes (which is still preliminary - it will probably be more when the final numbers come in) is certainly article-worthy. I do agree that it could use work and that each of the three major derechos (the June 4 Mid-Atlantic derecho, the June 5 Plains serial derecho and the June 8 Great Lakes derecho) should have their own section at the bottom. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now with the fatalities today and the decision to keep the article going, the argument seems moot. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No question this is a notable event and deserving of an article. I don't think it should be merged with the flood article, but they could be coordinated.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, obviously now after yesterday's events I withdraw this proposal. At some point though after both events are completed and the dust has settled I think it could be a good idea to create a parent article for the entire event, with {{main}} links to both this and the flood articles from it. WxGopher (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 15[edit]

Hopefully, today's large moderate risk will be a bust, CAPE values in some areas are expected to hit 4000 j/kg. Again, many of the same areas hit by the recent rash of tornadoes over the past few weeks are under the moderate risk. When will it end?--JForget 14:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, but tornadoes aren't a big threat today. The wind patterns suggest a major derecho or two is possible though. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Midwest's supposed to be quite for once.--Jakezing (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA?[edit]

This article looks pretty good. When should we nominate for GA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showtime2009 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article looks pretty good, I think it's ready for a nomination now. I'll see if I can find anything to fine tune. WxGopher (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One portion that was removed was the possible tornado near Highway 402. First it doesn't said the date, but might be on June 9 along the derecho, but also it is a doppler indicated possible tornado - thus not confirmed. I have not seen any confirmation other then the Lucan tornado. --JForget 02:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple suggestions I have so far:

  • provide a couple more refs for the first paragraph of the June 7-8 section (specifically for all of the tornado reports listed)
  • Try to add a couple more images to the non-tornadic events section (flooding section is fine, but more for the derecho parts) WxGopher (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in that paragraph is sourced.
  • I can't find any images for june 4, 5, or 8 but i found a couple for june 10. Showtime2009 (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. I'll go through one more time and put some finishing touches on it. WxGopher (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say it's ready to nominate now. I think there are a few more things we can clean up, but it will likely be a few weeks before this is reviewed so we'll have some time to do that. WxGopher (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the June 7-8 section, I would make a suggestion per this sentence ---> "More severe weather developed on June 7. Across Chicago's south and southwest suburbs, a slow moving supercell thunderstorm spawned eight tornadoes", maybe if it were written like this ---> "More severe weather developed on June 7, as it came across Chicago's south and southwest suburbs, a slow moving supercell thunderstorm spawned eight tornadoes", so the first two sentences can be combined.
    I changed it to your suggestion.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Should there be "bolding" in the article? Specifically, that "moderate risk" is bolded several times.
    I've removed all bolding in the article.
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Does Reference 23 cover all this ---> "At 4:31 pm CDT (2131 UTC), an EF1 tornado touched down southwest of Dwight, Illinois in Livingston County, snapping power poles and damaging trees and roofs; this tornado lifted at 4:45 pm CDT (2145 UTC). From 5:18 pm CDT (2218 UTC) to 5:46 pm CDT (2246 UTC), an EF2 tornado traveled 13.6 miles (22 km) across southwestern Will County and extreme northwestern Kankakee County, near Wilmington, uprooting trees, damaging homes, and destroying sheds. In Wilmington and Symerton, search and rescue operations were conducted and people with minor injuries had to be evacuated from their damaged homes. At 5:51 pm CDT (2251 UTC), an EF2 tornado touched down for three minutes in central Will County near Wilton Center, destroying a garage and severely damaging a metal building. From 5:55 pm CDT (2255 UTC) to 6:08 pm CDT (2308 UTC), an EF2 tornado occurred west of Monee, leveling barns, garages, and outbuildings and damaging homes. An EF2 tornado re–formed at 6:13 pm CDT (2313 UTC), injuring six people as it crossed Interstate 57"?
    Yes it covers all of that Showtime2009 (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Showtime2009 for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado count update[edit]

NWS Grand Forks released some new findings and several new tornadoes were confirmed, which raise the current total to 136. Like with the previous outbreaks (one of which had its final count skyrocket to over 230), the number is still subject to change when the NCDC data is released (I would expect June to be released sometime in September). CrazyC83 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly update from the NCDC brings the total of the month to 289, up from 148 prelim tornadoes, most of which are probably in this outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding should still be included[edit]

I'd rather not get into an edit war so I'll say it here; the section recently removed about the flooding should really stay. I say this because people might think, "what does this see also link have to do with tornadoes?" since there is no real connection without thinking about it. The section doesn't have to be massive, just two or three paragraphs (like what was already there) is perfect with a {{Main article|June 2008 Midwest floods}} template under the section title. Thoughts? Cyclonebiskit 06:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The flooding was already ongoing before the outbreak and afterwards. It has its own article so I'll remove it from the see also section. Showtime2009 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the outbreak did exacerbate the flooding, right? That would be included in the article as its part of this event. Cyclonebiskit 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 23:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Tornado outbreak sequence of June 3–11, 2008. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak sequence of June 3–11, 2008. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak sequence of June 3–11, 2008. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_June_3–11,_2008&oldid=1208391801"