Template:Did you know nominations/2011 Cullman–Arab tornado

2011 Cullman–Arab tornado

(

)

... that five out of the six fatalities from the 2011 Cullman–Arab tornado occurred in one house?

Source: https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/ and https://www.al.com/breaking/2011/04/in_arab_killer_tornado_breaks.html

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ferrari FF
Comment: Although the source is a bit hard to navigate, the DAT (Damage Assessment Toolkit) is produced by the United States Government, and is overwhelmingly considered reliable.

Created by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

E_F⁵ 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC).

Also, forgot to add an ALT1; ... that five out of the six people killed in the 2011 Cullman–Arab tornado were members of the same family? Source on this can be found here. E_F⁵ 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
A tornado DYK! Calling dibs on reviewing this, looking now. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Haha, it's always great to see fellow weather enthusiasts! This is one of the more interesting tornadoes I've written about, and definitely one of the more infamous. :) E_F⁵ 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I picked up on a couple issues during my read-through of the article, and will have to hold off on a fuller review until these are addressed. The second paragraph in §Track_through_Cullman is unsourced, as is the final sentence in that section. Additionally, the second paragraph in §Fairview_and_Hulaco states that a home was completely destroyed at high-end EF4 intensity – this doesn't corroborate with the tornado's stated peak intensity of 175 mph, which is near the middle of the EF4 range. Everything else looks promising so far: both hooks are short, interesting, and cited (though I personally prefer ALT1); a QPQ has been done; and the article is both new enough and long enough, not to mention well-written. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Issues have been addressed. E_F⁵ 13:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated, EF5. My apologies for the late response – today was busier IRL than I had expected, and I've been having troubles with internet connection at home throughout the day. I am a little concerned that ref 10 (OKC Storm Watcher) is a WordPress blog. I am open to being proven wrong, but the blog appears to fall short of the standards set forth at WP:RSBLOG and WP:EXPERTSPS. The same could be said for ref 23 (AlabamaWX) – however, this seems to be an uncontroversial and harmless archival of a Public Information Statement from the National Weather Service, so I'm not quite as concerned here. Source-text integrity checks out—I am assuming good faith wrt Cullman Times refs 15, 22, and 24, which are dead links—and I cannot detect any instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. (High returns on Earwig are false positives resulting from the use of properly attributed public domain text.) I would like for ref 10 to be replaced, or its use justified, before approving the nomination, but that is the only roadblock at this point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Done. I just removed it, since the claims were backed up by reliable sources. :) E_F⁵ 11:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent – I'm happy to approve this. Preference for ALT1, as stated above. Great work, EF5! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)