1997 Jarrell tornado is currently an Earth sciences
good article nominee. Nominated by
Sir MemeGod at 15:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who has not contributed significantly to (or nominated) this article may review it according to the
good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a
good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the
good article instructions.)
Short description: Extremely destructive F5 tornado in 1997
This article was nominated for
deletion on 15 May 2024. The result of
the discussion was keep.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 articles
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 articles
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.
I found the photo sequence on a .gov PDF published by the NWS about the tornado, and Scott Beckwith is attributed to it. I'm pretty sure the photo is not copyrighted, as every photo I have seen from Beckwith so far has either been given to the NWS and put in PD or just doesn't have a copyright.
MemeGod ._. (
My talk page,
my contributions and
my creations!)
21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
PUT NON-FREE RATIONALE ON IT!! Based on a talk page on
WP:WEATHER, it is likely that the picture IS copyrighted. It needs to either have a non-free rationale or it needs to be DELETED.
12.74.221.43 (
talk)
15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Can’t find anything on the disclaimer at NCDC about copyright. But nothing saying anything is copyrighted (or in the public domain either).
12.74.221.43 (
talk)
03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
This is stupid at this point. English Wikipedia does not determine copyright stuff, the Commons does. If there is a problem with any image, open a discussion on the Commons. The direct image which started this discussion
File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is currently
nominated for deletion on the Commons. The other image referenced by others and the one currently in use on the article,
File:Dead man walking Jarrell.jpg is, as far as I am aware, public domain due to being used, without a copyright watermark, on a .gov URL website. If you believe otherwise, nominate it for deletion on the Commons. I am closing this discussion as this has turned from a discussion about the content to more or less a forum with the same repeated question, which is already solved/answered (or will be answered within the week on the Commons). The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Pretty good here, we have a short description (one of the few things I'm experienced in) that is formatted correctly, correctly-used and informative infobox, the "main article" or "see also" templates are used correctly as well. Headers and sub-headers are also worded properly, and paragraphs are properly sectioned out! :)
MemeGod ._. (
My talk page,
my contributions and
my creations!)
20:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So this point is about no
WP:OR, otherwise known as no original research. I will start doing some verifiability checks, which basically mean checking the source to see if what it is cited for is, in fact, in the source. I added a few
failed verification templates in the meteorological synopsis section. In theory, you should be able to hover (not click) over the "failed verification" link, and it should show you the note I left about it. If it doesn't show the note when you hover over it, let me know. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
After running EarWig (check can be found
| here), there were only 2 publications that have over a 10% similarity to the main draft, and none go over 20%. Looking good copyvio-wise, I am going to attempt to whittle similarities down to under 10%, and we should be fine from there.
MemeGod ._. (
My talk page,
my contributions and
my creations!)
13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Everything that could possibly be addressed about this demon of a tornado has been addressed, including the "Dead Man Walking photograph" and "Fatalities" sections. I'll double check to see what needs added, but as of right now, in my eyes, it looks fine section-wise! Edit: Page is now 32,000+ bytes, bigger than the article for the 2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado. Length-wise, we are 1000% good. :D
MemeGod ._. (
My talk page,
my contributions and
my creations!)
05:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh yeah, weather articles almost always just automatically pass this point. An example of a weather-article where this point would actually need to be carefully looked at is like
Hurricane Katrina disaster relief or
2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Political response. Basically once politics are involved or mentioned in the article (or general controversies like on
2011 Smithville tornado#Internet fiction), this point becomes important. For a more or less science/history article, it doesn't really apply. At the end, we can double check this point to make sure the article passes it. Currently, that point would only possibly apply to the "Reactions" section in the article, as that starts becoming less-science/history and more reaction-history, which has a chance to lead to NPOV things. But, like I said, almost every weather article just passes it without any issues. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)reply
First off here, over on the Commons, a URL-source needs to be added for
File:1997 Jarrell forming.png &
File:1997 Jarrell tornado roping.png. Basically, in the "Source" section of each image, the URL itself just needs to be dropped, rather than "National Weather Service". An example of what I mean can be seen on
File:Jarrell tornado 1997.jpg. The other images in the article already have solid free-use licenses and can be easily verified with such. So, honestly step 1 (since it involves the Commons and copyright stuff) would be to add the exact source for those two images. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)21:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
You can link the URL here and I could fix the images over on the Commons, or you could. For direct changes: For both image "Source" sections, change "National Weather Service" ---> URL (just copy/paste it). That is the only change that needs to happen. The "Author" section can stay "NWS", but the website URL needs to be on there instead of just "National Weather Service". The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)21:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Sweet! So as of this message at least, all eight images in the article are free-to-use and all have acceptable copyright licenses. If this was a formal good article nomination (GAN), this point would pass. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)22:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Whoops, scratch that. I forgot to double check what 6b was, which is suitable captions. Are the images relevant, yes, but that is only part of 6b. Let me do a caption check. The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)22:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
For
File:1997 Jarrell tornado peak strength.jpg, the caption reads "The 1997 Jarrell F5, as it was at peak strength", however the source for does not state the photograph was taken at peak intensity. As such either (1) a source saying the photograph is the tornado at peak intensity needs to be added in the caption or (2) the caption needs to be rewritten to remove
the original research (
WP:OR).
Same thing for
File:1997 Jarrell forming.png &
File:1997 Jarrell tornado roping.png, which has the current captions of "The tornado as it was forming" & "The tornado as it was roping out outside of Jarrell". The source with the images does not directly state the tornado was forming/roping out, so a source needs to be added or the caption needs to be rewritten.
In the section "Tracking into Jarrell", the 5th sentence is cutoff: "The tornado tore off asphalt as it crossed County Roads 308, 305, and 307; the thickness of the asphalt pavement was roughly.". Hopefully someone knows the thickness and can complete the sentence.
Jamezkoe (
talk)
21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It seems to be entirely composed of sentences taken directly from previous parts of the articles, word for word. This whole article needs a clean up
Jamezkoe (
talk)
22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
1. The following passage exists word for word in Both the "Damage to Jarrell" and "Fatalities" sections: "The high intensity of the Jarrell tornado left those in its path with little recourse; most homes in Double Creek Estates were built on cement slab foundations and few had a basement or any form of storm shelter; nineteen people sought refuge in a single storm cellar." 2. In the previously mentioned "Damage to Jerrell", it states "Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were also destroyed. In total, the tornado dealt $10–20 million in damage to the neighborhood. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". In the fatalities section it says Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were destroyed. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.".
Jamezkoe (
talk)
08:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Btw, I shouldn't have titled it as I did. I think a section dedicated to the victims is wholly deserved, but the state that it's currently in is simply disrespectful.
Jamezkoe (
talk)
09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support There was an issue with ArcGIS Damage Viewer and Tornado Archive on my part (both sources are reliable) which showed Prairie Dell closer to the tornado path than it actually was. I have already fixed the content in the article, but the title needs changed to satisfy this. Thanks! :)
MemeGod ._. (
My talk page,
my contributions and
my creations!)
16:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The event is notable for being the "Jarrell" tornado solely, and should be represented properly in the title as the "1997 Jarrell Tornado." None of the sources refer to the event as the Prairie Dell tornado
Wikiwillz (
talk)
22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
Self promotion claim?
@
Headbomb (alt):, you rececently
removed part of the page + a source under the rational of "self promotion / self published". The author, Marlene Bradford, is a PhD'ed
meteorologist from
Texas A&M University with a doctorial on tornado forecasting. I think this qualifies as a subject-expert. Btw, the author is academically published in the field of meteorology as well (
[1]), with a publication in the
American Meteorological Society. Could you explain further on your rational for removing it and/or could you re-add the information? The
Weather Event Writer (
Talk Page)19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The article claimed "Multiple books have been written and published on the subject of the tornado, the most notable being Marlene Bradford's "Incredible Destruction in Central Texas: The Jarrell Tornado"." This is an extraordinary claim supported by no source whatsoever. This is a self-published book, putting it at the bottom of notability of any books dealing with this tornado. Wikipedia does not exist to promote the works of self published authors, no matter how 'qualified' they are.
Headbomb (alt) (
talk)
19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Since there is an active copyright discussion on the "Dead Man Walking" photo, we need a new image for the infobox. Any thoughts? While the tornado was a wedge in its' F5 phase, it also had extremely high windspeeds even as a rope. Honestly anything would represent it. Thanks! :)
MemeGod ._. (
My talk page,
my contributions and
my creations!)
12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
There is only a single semi-reliable source for 300mph wind speeds, and despite four different citations, neither are truly reliable here. Mississippi-based meteorologist
Eric Graves, on a Facebook post, stated "Winds were estimated to be over 300 mph at times", which was followed up by the mysanantonio article. Beyond this is the Plainview Herald article, which states the tornado had "winds up to 318 mph", and the SF Gate article, which I believe is the true original article, which stated victims had "their skin burned by the deadly friction of 300 mph winds."
All 4 of these sources appear to be based on the
Fujita scale's F5 rating, which ranged from 261-318mph, which was likely picked up by the media who sensationalized the articles by using the high ends of that as those of the tornado itself (the tornado was never confirmed to have winds over 300 miles per hour). I believe claim was fabricated by SF Gate and Plainview Herald independently, then passed onto Eric Graves, who passed it onto mysanantonio.
Jarrell has never officially been acknowledged as containing wind speeds over 300mph by the
National Weather Service or
European Severe Storms Laboratory. It also has never been officially rated on the
TORRO scale, regardless of what some uncited and soon-to-be-reverted edits would have you believe. Ideally a good source would come from an expert, in which case
Thomas P. Grazulis is probably the one to consult here, but until a reliable source can be found, the article should not state the tornado contained a wind speed of over 300 miles per hour.
GeorgeMemulous (
talk)
02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply