Talk:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a 2021 tornado in the Chicago suburbs had over four times the helicity it reasonably needed?

• Source: https://www.weather.gov/lot/2021jun2021

• Reviewed:
• Comment: The verification for the claim can be found on the "Environment" tab of the source linked.

Created by GeorgeMemulous (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC).

• Seems good: nominated within 7 days, all content is referenced, not seeing copyvio issues, stable, hook seems to be a plain summary of the more technical content in the article (which might benefit from some refinement, to be clear for non-experts, like in the hook here). Ping nom User:GeorgeMemulous so they can consider my suggestion. PS. QPQ not required but politely asked for, to reduce our backlog.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: GeorgeMemulous (talk · contribs) 17:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I will review this soon. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead needs to be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC) The lead is looking much better now! IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	2b. 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).	See comments below. I've only checked the first section and the first paragraph of the second section so far. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC) I was able to verify the first section of text, I'm just waiting for the refs in the second section to be shuffled around a bit but things are looking better so far. IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC) Source check is done. I wasn't able to access all of the sources here but my other source checks were coming back good regardless. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm going to place this on hold until sourcing issues are fixed and the lead is improved.

• low (20%) risk for a tornado, and a very low (5%) chance of a significant tornado. I'm not seeing the percentages in the source. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
• An observation from the National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois at Lewis University Airport, taken at 6z (11 p.m. CDT), revealed MUCAPE values of 1556 j/kg, as well as extreme storm-relative helicity values of 644 m2/s2 at 0–1 kilometers and 857 m2/s2 at 0–3 kilometers, where storm-relative values of helicity above 150 m2/s2 are considered favorable for tornadogenesis. I'm not seeing this in the source. Could you maybe give me a quote fir this? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ref 2 is a pretty big source, but the claim can be found on the page's environment tab.

  Observations, however, demonstrated that the degree of wind shear was not fully captured by forecast or model-analyzed parameters. The observed wind profile from the NWS Chicago WSR-88D demonstrated extreme amounts of low-level wind shear, with 0-1 km storm-relative helicity in excess of 600 m2/s2, and 0-3 km storm-relative helicity in excess of 800 m2/s2. Typically, storm-relative helicity values in excess of 150 m2/s2 is thought as favorable for tornadoes.

  Public domain text attributed to National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois, from their analysis of the tornado on 20 June 2021.

  The exact figures of 644 and 857 for helicity and 1556 for MUCAPE came from the image with the caption Vertical Wind Profile and Hodograph from the NWS Chicago WSR-88D around the time of the EF-3 tornado. It's on the page's environment tab. However, I recognize that I stated that 6z is 11 pm CDT, the observations were around 4Z. 6Z is 1 AM. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The tornado first touched down at 11:02 p.m. in the Springbrook Prairie Forest Preserve, and the first warning for the tornado was issued at 11:05 p.m. for radar-indicated rotation. I'm not seeing this in the source. Could you maybe give me a quote here? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ref 2 verifies this claim again, on the "Surveys / Tornadoes" tab.

  The approximate starting location of the tornado was just south of 75th St. on the western edge of the Springbrook Prairie Forest Preserve at 11:02 PM.

  Public domain text attributed to National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois from their analysis of the tornado on 20 June 2021. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• You have a huge chunk of text in the first paragraph under tornado summary that has their sources for it. The three sources all being bundled at the end make it very hard for me to verify all the information. Is there any way you could make the references only be sourced at the end of the sentence they support. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  Alright, so my current to-do is rewriting / adding on to the lede to get this to GA standards and fixing the bundled sources for the tornado summary, along with a few minor changes. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sounds good. I’m not currently on my laptop but I’ll check out the sources you corrected me on when i’m on my laptop. Thanks for being patient with me as I sometimes miss things in images or if the source doesn’t easily display things so this may be a bit of learning process on my end. I’m happy to do the review but I may ask for a second opinion from someone more experienced in writing about storms. Is there some users or wikiprojects (that are active) that I could reach out to in case I need a second opinion? IntentionallyDense (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I know @Sir MemeGod helped me out with a bit of formatting during this article's infancy, and this is within the scope of Wikiproject Weather. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'd be willing to help out. :) SirMemeGod  14:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Sir MemeGod Thank you. I'll ping you if I need any specefic help but I'm just going to re-do my source check for now! IntentionallyDense (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I've cleaned up some of the inline citations. I should note that the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) citations are currently not accessible as far as I know because the NCEI database is offline due to Hurricane Helene. However, an archived version of the page may be accessible, and I know which claims can be attributed to the NCEI entry. These should be allowed per WP:SOURCEACCESS as the information is still true and published, was and will be again publicly accessible, and the database will return to operation once cleanup from Helene is concluded. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Ref 6 verifies the probabilities for severe weather. On the SPC page for archived watches, above the outline graphic, hovering over "Probabilities" will show the forecasted probabilities for severe weather, and they're listed in numeric form below the graphic. Alternatively the product in text form makes these figures easier to attribute for those not familiar with the SPC website if that would be preferred here. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The current lead of this article isn't what I would expect from a GA. I suggest rewriting it so it doesn't need references and expanding it a bit. Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section has lots of great advice for this.

• "I'm just waiting for the refs in the second section to be shuffled around a bit" @IntentionallyDense Could you clarify please? From my perspective everything's cited, with the only point of contention being that there's two sentences describing the tornado warning's upgrade. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nevermind I see that you fixed it. I was refering to how the refs were bundled together but it looks like you fixed that issue and I just didn't look close enough. I'll continue with my review now, thank you for being patient with me. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• The Chicago metropolitan area had been impacted by many tornadoes in the past, most recently to 2021 an EF3 tornado near Coal City, Illinois in 2015. In DuPage and Cook counties, a violent F4 tornado had previously affected Lemont and Darien, killing 2 and injuring 23 in 1976. I'm not sure if this is on-topic but I'm pinging @Sir MemeGod to check. Is this kind of historical summary typical for a tornado article?

@IntentionallyDense: Sorry for getting back so late, I was too busy looking at the aurora :). Either way, it is not what I typically see. I'd rather see it worded as The Chicago metropolitan area has been impacted by several tornadoes in the past, most notably in 1976, when a violent F4 tornado moved through Lemont and Darien counties, killing 2 and injuring 23 more. The EF3 doesn't really need mentioned, I can't find a way to fit it in the sentence without it sounding weird. The aurora was absolutely beautiful last night. SirMemeGod  12:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• It isn't necessarily standard but I added it so I didn't have to add refs in the lede. Plus, it establishes a bit of meteorological context for the area and it isn't against MOS or anything as far as I know. If it's not in a good place in Meteorological Synposis, though, it can be put in Aftermath, I suppose? Your judgement. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. We also had northern lights last night and i didn’t get to see them (but saw some photos). @GeorgeMemulous how do you think of that wording? I think (and this may be controversial) that I’d rather see one citation in the lead than have the one out of place sentence in the other section but it’s up to you. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

After consulting with 2013 Moore tornado I think it's best I remove the quote from the synopsis and just add it to the lede. May the MOS gods strike me down again. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this as well. IntentionallyDense (talk) IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Also @GeorgeMemulous: although I'm not formally reviewing the article, I'd suggest adding the {{convert}} template to add non-Imperial conversions, since the article is currently at DYK (congrats on that by the way) :). SirMemeGod  18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. I don't think there were any beyond the Non-tornadic impacts section. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Before I pass this article I just wanted to check with Sir MemeGod about the technical language used in the article. I'm having a bit of a hard time understanding all of the technical language but I think that is just because I'm not familiar with the subject. I was wondering if this looks appropriately technical to you? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yea, it looks good. :) SirMemeGod  13:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• If you're looking for another article to compare this to, see 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado and 2015 Rochelle–Fairdale tornado for some other tornado GAs with technical language presumably appropriate. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you this does help me quite a bit. Thanks again for being patient with me as I am unfamiliar with weather articles. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)