Talk:2013 Hattiesburg tornado

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2013 Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, I'll be reviewing this article starting tomorrow morning. As a quick heads up, I've noticed a lot of issues just with a quick glance and I get the feeling this article will likely be failing GAN. That said, I'll still give a full review so the necessary improvements can be made. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Review

The most blatant issue with the article is the lack of recent information. Looking at the references, all the sources were taken in the immediate aftermath of the tornado. With that, there clearly is a lack of long-term recovery information (FEMA most notably). No information appears to have been pulled from the National Climatic Data Center's storm reports as well.

Lead

• Does not meet the standards of WP:LEAD
  • Information within the article is not accurately summarized within the lead. Large chunks are missing and not much is said in it.
  • Lead sentence has a double redundancy in it: (essentially) "this tornado is Hattiesburg was a tornado that hit Hattiesburg"
• Suggestions
  • Provide a sentence or two on the overall setup of the day that led to the tornado as well as at most a sentence on the other tornadoes.
  • A few sentences describing the track of the tornado, noting its duration, intensity, and track.
  • Short summary of damage caused by the tornado, making note of any well-known areas impacted (in this case a university).
  • A short summary of the immediate response and long-term aftermath related to the tornado.

Meteorological synopsis

• I'm struggling to find any meteorological information within this section. The information presented here essentially is a summary of the damage caused by the tornado along its track. These details are best suited to be rewritten in the Impact section, rather than where they currently are.
  • As a side note, this is a major beef of mine with individual tornado articles. There appears to be a tendency to lump the impact into the Meteorological synopsis section, detailing what was destroyed/damaged where along the tornado's path. Currently, there is only one example of a featured article of a single tornado: 2006 Westchester County tornado. The formatting of this article is what should be followed for all single-tornado articles. For the Meteorological synopsis, it provides a funnel-type structure, detailing the large-scale conditions and gradually narrowing down to the individual storm that produced the tornado.
• Suggestions
  • Needs complete rewrite
  • Work with the concept of the funnel I mentioned (big event to localized tornado)
  • Overall conditions leading up to event
    • Where did the storm system originate? What atmospheric conditions made tornadic activity possible? What specifically in Mississippi allowed for an EF4 tornado to touch down?
      • All of this information can be found within Convective Outlooks and Mesoscale Discussions from the Storm Prediction Center
    • Include relevant information from Tornado/Severe Thunderstorm Watches in the area (if there's nothing meteorologically notable in them, just mention when they were issued and for where)
    • Continue to funnel down to the individual storm that spawned the tornado
      • When/where did it form? Should be able to determine this from tornado/severe thunderstorm warnings
      • Were there certain conditions locally that allowed for a supercell to form? (details, if any, would be found in a mesoscale discussion or report on the tornado)
      • Briefly describe the EF1 that preceded this tornado
      • When/where did the tornado touch down?
      • Describe the track of the tornado, noting when/where it intensified. Some damage can be noted in this section, but not to the level it is now. Details such as homes leveled to warrant EF4 intensity are types of info that work well here.
      • Wrap up that piece with the dissipation of the tornado
      • Describe the rest of the supercell's track, noting the other two tornadoes that touched down, and where it dissipated (if possible).
  • Merge "Other tornadoes" here

Impact

• Hardly a section to begin with, only has a few sentences (none of which are actually impact)
• Suggestions
• Needs complete rewrite
• Provide overall statistics on the damage caused by the tornado in the first paragraph (damage total, casualties, buildings damaged/destroyed)
• Detail specifics of damage county-by-county

Aftermath

• Severely outdated
  • Most recent source on there is from February 13, three days after the tornado.
• Add information from FEMA Disaster Declaration Page
  • Be sure to search through all relevant links within that page
• Incorporate news reports in the months since the tornado

Other tornadoes

• Suggestions
  • Merge with Meteorological synopsis (see comments in that section)

Overall

• In short, this article falls far short of WP:GA standards, and more or less should be failed right away; however, I'll give you some time to try and work it out. There are major issues across the board with this article and I've given my suggestions as to how to best fix them. I'll leave this review open for a week to allow you time to patch this up. Best of luck with improving this article! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Though some of the improvements have been made, the article is still not where it needs to be for GA. I gave a little extra time since I saw you put some effort in towards the closing date of this GAN; however, there's too much left. As such, I'm failing this nomination. Please address all the above comments before nominating this for GA again. Regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting injury count numbers

@United States Man, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, TropicalAnalystwx13, 453Brax, and Cyclonebiskit: While reworking this article in an extra sandbox of mine so that includes the entire outbreak, I stumbled upon a glaring issue: the injury count listed in NCEI (71) and the one in the article (82) do not match. I understand that the NWS Jackson was the source where this information came from, but the NCDC report usually has the final say so of what the numbers are so I'm wondering about which one do we go with. Do we go with what is on the NWS Jackson page or do we go with the final report that NCDC put?

Just FYI, the reworked article will also have information on the winter storm that came with it so it will likely get a non-tornado outbreak name like February 2013 North American storm complex. You are welcome to help me with it, especially since I don't know alot about the winter storm that spawned this small outbreak. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – I am opposed to any "reworking" of this article. The article should remain in the manner as it is now. If you want to create a separate article, you should do that and make mention of this one. United States Man (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  I get what you mean. Do you mind helping me with that? The page where I'm working on it is here. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree on going with the NCEI count, since those final reports are likely to eliminate double-counted or misattributed injuries. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)