Talk:November 2013 North American storm complex

Draft Assessment

• Lead=  Done
• Meteorological synopsis=  Done
• Impacts=  Done

Tails Wx 02:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

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 Freedom4U talk 22:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that during the November 2013 North American storm complex, a downed power line caused by strong winds started a 100+ acre wildfire, prompting evacuations? Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-weather-sanfrancisco-idUSBRE9AL0BI20131122
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Desulfovibrio vulgaris
  • Comment: QPQ coming soon, feel free to ping and comment if hook is too wordy.

Created by Tails Wx (talk). Self-nominated at 02:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/November 2013 North American storm complex; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Tails Wx: Article and hook look good. Source verifies hook, which matches the article. I do think the hook is a bit wordy as you mentioned. I think it has a bit too much information which can be removed. How about ALT1?

  ... that a powerline caused a 100+ acre fire during a North American storm?

I'm happy to approve either way. —Panamitsu (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Panamitsu: I never got the ping somehow. :P Anyway, ALT1 looks good, though I would add "downed" in front of "powerline" since well, how did the powerline cause a 100+ acre fire? Other than that, no concerns. Tails Wx 17:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources tag

I am surprised to see a primary sources template/tag on this page. I just looked over all 103 sources present in the article (as of this message) and none are actually primary sources. If no one sees this message or responds to it within 48 hours, I’ll go ahead and remove the template. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(Courtesy ping taggers, JoelleJay and Tails Wx) The vast majority of the sources used in the article are either from contemporary news media or government databases (i.e. the Storm Events catalog). Some would consider these primary sources, or at the very least too closely tied to the event to be clear secondary sources, the kind that may be needed to demonstrate a weather event's lasting effects and sustained attention. I would encourage taking a deeper dive into looking for high-quality reliable sources after the event to assuage these possible concerns. As an aside, given how often weather-related articles are created for recent events, (e.g. see {{United States winter storms}}), it will be helpful to pursue what was recently set out in WikiProject Weather and clarify/expand WP:NWEATHER to reconcile the creation/structure/content of articles with, say for example, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: WP:109PAPERS says that just having a ton of refs doesn’t guarantee notability. There is no WP:SUSTAINED coverage so it fails WP:LASTING and should be merged.47.19.68.110 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

(reply to TheAustinMan) (EC) — Storm Events Database isn’t a primary source from what I was told in the past, as it goes through the initial reports (like law enforcement) then through the National Weather Service (signed off by the lead meteorologist) and then it is published 3-months later (about 75 days) by NCEI after it is verified and finalized. The info comes from a huge amount of sources. You can see the process described here: (Storm Data FAQ). I was assuming that was the cause for the primary source tag. But there may be other problems. Either way, WP:Weather considers Storm Events Database as well as most things published by NOAA to be secondary sources, which is why a ton of hurricane articles become GAs. If you and others think it is a primary source, then a larger-scale discussion that needs to take place to determine if it is primary or secondary and honestly at that point, determine what from NOAA is primary or secondary. For example, almost every NOAA source on Hurricane Walaka (a FA article) is a forecast discussion, which came out during the hurricane. Those are considered secondary sources from what I was told. So if those are secondary NOAA sources, Storm Events Database surely must be, given the 75 day process it goes through. I’m off-topic now, but if those are the only reason for the primary sources tag, then it can be removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TheAustinMan's analysis above. Literally every single source in this article are either primary sources released during the weather event, or government databases, fails WP:SUSTAINED. The only secondary source in the article is The Weather Prediction Center's review of the event, and no other secondary or tertiary sources found. A merge to 2013–14 North American winter#Late November storm complex would be appropriate. ~ Tails Wx 16:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge

I suggest we merge this back into 2013-14 North American winter because it fails WP:SUSTAINED and is quite bloated, as being discussed at RFA.47.19.68.110 (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Why? This seems to be nonsense for me. Matthiasb (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this merge. We do not have evidence of SUSTAINED secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Merge to 2013-14 North American winter#Late November storm complex. As mentioned above, the only secondary source is The Weather Prediction Center's review of the event. That source alone is not going to demonstrate notability of this event. Additionally, numerous references does not guarantee notability. In this case, there are 103 references, all but one (the noted secondary source) are either primary references or government databases. As the article creator, this clearly fails WP:SUSTAINED. ~ Tails Wx 21:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Merged per the above and the fact this has remained vacant for 3 weeks with no additional response. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)