1925 Tri-State tornado is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by EF5 at 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to 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.)
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 Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
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
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
Per WP:DYKSPLIT, splits from non-new articles are not considered "recently created"; instead, they are treated as expansions from the copied material. Since the third revision seems to be the point where you switched from copying to writing new prose, I'll calculate from there. That version had 23601 characters of prose, and the current version has 26147 – nowhere near close to a fivefold expansion. However, I see that you have nominated the article for GA; if it passes, that would make it eligible for DYK. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, here we go with another minor tornado debate. While the tornado is widely accepted as a F5, it never officially received that rating and thus should not be marked as such in the infobox. Pinging @Departure–: and @MarioProtIV:. While I'm here, I'll say that it shocked me how this tornado never had an article till yesterday, I mean 700 deaths and just a section??? EF514:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In lieu of an official rating, I believe the widespread consensus is to include a widely accepted rating. See also 1883 Rochester tornado. In the US, the NWS hasn't rated a lot of older tornadoes like the ESSL or other agencies / individuals do, but remember that marking it as EFU or FU is also incorrect, as FU is an actual rating for no damage observed and unless a source can be found for FU, it shouldn't be marked as such. A blank infobox is also not ideal when it accepted to have produced F5 damage, a claim that has been reiterated by experts and agencies. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EFU / FU is an unsourced rating, EF? / F? is also less than ideal. Perhaps we can use Unofficial F5 rating in the infobox instead? That doesn't display well in the infobox, though. Maybe this is something we should take to the creators of Template:Infobox weather event. Ideally, it should both display that the tornado's accepted rating is F5, while making clear the rating is unofficial. Perhaps an |unofficial-rating= parameter could be used. Departure– (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The confusion with readers will be that the infobox doesn't clarify whether the rating is official or unofficial, and makes it seem like the tornado was an F5, which it technically wasn't. EF514:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an original research tag after the "At the Orient Mine, a large multi-ton coal tipple was blown over and rolled by the tornado" sentence in the article. From off-Wikipedia communication, I have information this may be false. This sentence, however, is cited by a book I do not have currently in my possession. I will make a note to try to see if my local university library has this book to double check this information. If someone else happens to have this book in there possession, I would like this sentence to be double checked if it is actually cited by the book reference. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoInformation12: This may be a hopeless verification check, but Wikipedia's XTools let me know you added the sentence (back in August 2013) with the The 1925 Tri-State Tornado's Devastation in Franklin County, Hamilton County, and White County, Illinois 2012 book reference. I do see that through the revision ages, that reference was removed from that sentence and it is now cited with the Death Rides the Sky: The Story of the 1925 Tri-State Tornado 2011 book reference. Do you, by chance, have either of those two books? Until TornadoInformation12 or another editor can verify that sentence is cited from either of those books, I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentence, given it has switched physical book references over the last decade and I do not know which editor in the last decade switched the physical book references. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]