Talk:2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado

How's this look

@Departure–: How does this look? Ignore the name, the Adamsville tornado didn't meet LASTING or NEVENT so I worked on this one instead. :) E_F⁵ 22:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it can be expanded to GA at the very least in addition. Also, for the fatalities, the Illinois survey and Indiana survey in the events database have different entries for the fatalities, so I added them both separately. Departure– (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Will do, I was planning on nominating it anyway. :) E_F⁵ 01:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The biggest flaws I saw with this article upon seeing it initially were the death tables padding out the length and the emergency text - I've removed them for now, as I don't have enough information to fill in the Illinois fatalities, and the tornado emergency text is boilerplate text. I do think a longer aftermath section and more meterological synopsis focusing on this area of Illinois and Indiana would greatly improve this article's odds of GA or FA quality. Also, there's a broken ref right at the end cited for three fatalities in Sullivan. Departure– (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Remember, I just made this like an hour ago, and it’s currently almost 9 pm here; I’ll iron it out tomorrow. :) E_F⁵ 01:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, for an article materialized from nothing to B-class in only three hours is still an accomplishment. Now we push for GA / FA (or, I will, anyway. That might come later after Covington and Little Rock / FL on the list article). Departure– (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Covington and Little Rock both need an article; Adamsville and Keota don’t have enough coverage for an article, unfortunately. All you need is 3+ GA+ articles, I’ll also nominate an FP just to make it look better. :) E_F⁵ 01:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Depending on how much effort us as a collective plan to put in, we could shoot for featured. There are seven articles in the topic sphere - the outbreak article, list of tornadoes, Wynne-Parkin, Robinson-Sullivan, the Belvidere Theatre collapse, as well as Little Rock and Covington which don't have articles. So far, the list of tornadoes article would be the easiest to get to FL quality, with the Belvidere theatre collapse being (in my opinion) at or above GA quality now. Wynne is C class but has a good length, and this one is B at the moment. Featured topics need at least half of the articles to be featured - in this case, that'd be the list article, and then most likely the outbreak article, Belvidere collapse, Little Rock tornado, and another one for four out of seven needed. Departure– (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, Good Topics need all topic articles to be GA. I'm assuming you thought only three did, plus the list article, but it operates differently from Featured Topics. Departure– (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Departure–: Now at GAN. E_F⁵ 17:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@EF5:: I'm not going to be the one doing the GAN, but I'll state that the Meteorological synopsis section should be cut down considerably and focus on southern Illinois and Indiana. I know ILX had an event summary that would make a great source for more specific information than you're going to find on the SPC outlook. Other than that, the Tornado summary section is using stacked citations, and spreading them throughout will improve your odds of a speedy GA. Also, some expansion of the Damage and subsequent recovery efforts section would be good. Also, the two screenshots of the DAT application should be replaced with maps of either the track illustrated or damage points along the path at those areas ideally - I'm honestly not sure if DAT application screenshots are PD, given how many sources for map information they cite. Other than that, the article seems fine with no glaring flaws. Departure– (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

DAT screenshots are in the public domain as a work of the federal government. I'm currently having some mental health issues off-wiki, but I'll look to see if illustrations do exist later, and if none exist then I'll just use the DAT. :) E_F⁵ 17:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I might be interested in making one with definitive attribution in my off-time later this week. Departure– (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I just added a handmade graphic at List of tornadoes by width - I'll make one for this tornado later on. I found out that the ArcGIS DAT uses data from Microsoft and multiple other private companies that may not or explicitly do not freely license their data, I explained this further on Commons. Anyway, check out that graphic, and I'm thinking I'll make a graphic much like the damage assessment toolkit, mixed with this graphic from the 2021 Naperville - Woodridge tornado soon. It's very late and I'm closing what may be my most productive wiki day ever at 64 edits and original media creation. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewing for good article review circles. May not be able to get to this until the weekend, so please be a bit patient. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disclaimer: Storm-chasing (especially tornadoes) is not my area of expertise. I will do my best to give you a comprehensive review, but as a Pacific Northwesterner, I am not as acquainted with the tornado as many in the midwest are. Perhaps I will become a storm-chaser as a result of reviewing this article though. Also, I will ping you and leave a note at the bottom of the review when I am done because I usually work in short bursts.

Update: Sorry for the slow progress. Academics started picking up for me and I have to prioritize them. I hope to have this done by next weekend at the latest. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 05:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

source checks

• Y source #1 checks out
• Y The stats check out in terms of sourcing. However, could you point out to me where in the UTC 1300 report you are getting the discrete supercells and the high CAPE values? Perhaps my lack of weather understanding is preventing me from seeing it?
  • Also, in the second meteorological paragraph in which you cited source #2, you mention a 16:30 UTC report but I don't see it inline. I know that this is background info from a different article but I would love to have inline citations handy so I can double check for original research.

Sure. Strong low-level to deep-layer shear will promote pre-frontal supercells by afternoon. The more intense tornado threat should be during the late afternoon and evening across the Lower MS Valley and Mid-South owing to the peak combination of instability and classic, sickle-shaped hodographs. Strong to potentially violent tornadoes will be possible with a few long-tracked supercells and This will support a broadening swath of moderate buoyancy characterized by MLCAPE of 1000-2000 J/kg. Added 1630 UTC ref. E_F⁵ 03:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Y Again, I see that sources #3 & 4 support a lot of tornadoes in Chicagoland but do not say anything about else about strong wind shear supporting the squall line. Perhaps this is also in the main article.

Removed the squall line mention. E_F⁵ 03:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• • That said, source 5 seems to support the southern Wisconsin statement and weak touchdown statements above.
• Y Source 6 checks out.
• Y Source 11 checks out.
•  Question: Are you getting the summary of damage attributed from source #10 from the video? There seems to be no mention of propane tanks and jeeps in that source.
• Y Ref 15 checks out, although I would also create an in-line citation for it on the first and second paragraphs of those sections because you reference information from that source in those paragraphs.
• Y Names of people who died check out.

prose checks

• picked up and toss a 1,000 → tossed

 Done E_F⁵ 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• link CAPE values to Convective available potential energy, also link squall line

 Done E_F⁵ 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• link to supercells
• could you explain to me why the Sullivan County Long-Term Recovery Coalition is bolded?

@EF5: I think I am about done reviewing this article. Most concerns have to do with sourcing, and I am inclined to believe that what's written but can't be found in the sources cited for that paragraph are in another source that you cited but did not cite inline in for that paragraph. If this is the case, it would make my job so much easier to cite inline all citations for all information in the paragraph, so as to avoid original research concerns. That being said, the article is very comprehensive and well-written, although I had a bit of trouble understanding the meterological synopsis section. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 22:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I was going to red Sullivan County Long-Term Recovery Coalition here but forgot. I've redirected it. I've also linked supercells. Thanks for the review! :) — E_F⁵ 22:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty, before I pass this article, could you give me a quick explanation for where you found some of the minute details like the propane tank and the flipped Jeep that I did not find in the sources listed or could you provide me the sources you found please? Don't want to seem all harsh and stuff, but previous reviewing experience has taught me to be a stickler. Even if you would have to remove the minutae, I think the article would still pass. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 02:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Propane tank, not sure how the rest slipped through. I've added a citation for the propane tank and removed the rest. — E_F⁵ 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't want to keep bothering you but could you please double-check the yellow ticks above for similar issues about things mentioned in the article but not found in the sources? Thanks! ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 03:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

HistoryTheorist, Addressed. :) — E_F⁵ 03:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Will pass now. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 19:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Narutolovehinata5 talk 01:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Damaged homes after the 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado

• ... that a tornado in the Midwestern United States dissipated near Palestine?

• Source: https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSILX&e=202304021740

• ALT1: ... that in the aftermath of the 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado (pictured), Sullivan, Indiana was "like a war zone"? Source: https://sullivancountyready.org/
• Reviewed:
• Comment: The image would be used for the alternative hook.

Improved to Good Article status by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

7kk (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2025 (UTC).

• I'm guessing you're new to DYK, but for the record, you should probably inform the creator / improving editor that got the article eligible for DYK - in this case, @EF5:. We could extend this a few hours past the 7-day limit for DYK, given the GA nomination on March 23, but neither of the hooks seem to me to pass WP:DYKINT - tornado damage is quite often compared to "like a war zone" - and I don't think having only two hooks, one referencing Palestine and another referencing destruction is the best taste. I'm nearly certain the original hook meant to say "formed near" instead of dissipated - Palestine is, yes, both a relatively common place name and a literal geographic place, but the tornado dissipated near Sullivan. Both sources are inadequate to my liking - the first was likely an April 1 hook and the ship has sailed on that, and the second is a primary source and should be attributed as such. I'll ask you to come up with some better hooks before I consider doing a full review. Departure– (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

As creator and GA improver, I’m fine with a DYK nom, but please give me time to suggest a better hook; I particularly don’t like the Palestine mention which just pokes fun at a town name. E_F⁵ 18:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: It's been over three weeks; do you have any interest in continuing this nomination? Note that it won't count against your current QPQ status either way. 7kk, who opened this, removed any mention of it from their talk page, so it's safe to say they're not interested. There's nothing wrong with not doing anything, you weren't intending on bringing this here and the person who brought it here doesn't seem to have any interest in it either. Departure– (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hm. If you don't mind, could I get other examples of tornado disaster sites being referred to as "war zones"? I personally think that meets WP:DYKINT. E_F⁵ 18:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: Within the last four years: December 10, 2021 (unspecified, likely Mayfield EF4): "The destruction of the Western Kentucky tornadoes has been described as "a warzone"", Little Rock, Arkansas EF3: "It was like a warzone", Rome, New York EF2: "It looked like just some kind of war zone", Perry, Texas EF1: "It’s like a warzone". Also, the Lemont, Illinois F4 had it in storm data, and we're basing the hook off of the Sullivan, Indiana one. Clearly it doesn't mean much. Departure– (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Darn. Hm... that in November 2023, weather enthusiasts alerted the National Weather Service that the agency missed tornado damage during a Tornado damage survey of the 2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado? Ignore formatting. I can come up with better, this is just off-the-bat. E_F⁵ 19:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if you want to add that to the article, might I suggest some variant of...

... that "weather enthusiasts" drew attention to an additional .66 mi (1.06 km) of a 2023 tornado's path that had gone unsurveyed?

Departure– (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure. The length doesn't matter, it's the fact that it was nearly a year after. E_F⁵ 19:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: Let me know when you've added and cited that, and I'll approve it. Departure– (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: It's been another two weeks, are you going to be adding that claim? That's all you need to do for me to approve this. Also, what do you think of this? I'd add it myself but that's a bit of COI, seeing as I'm the one doing this DYK. Departure– (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: Holy crap, that's some of the craziest cycloidal marking I've ever seen! Added the claim. ^EF⁵ 13:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

From there, no issues with the article, and nothing major has changed since my first check. Good to go! Departure– (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• The nomination has been pulled per a WT:DYK discussion. Given DYKINT concerns as well as objections by those involved, both the promoted hook (the "war zone" hook) and the editors' preferred hook (the "weather enthusiasts" hook) have been struck. A new, compromise hook is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• In addition, given that Departure also specializes in weather-related articles, and how one of the main concerns raised at WT:DYK was regarding broad or non-specialist interestingness, it would probably best for a third-party editor (probably one detached from weather-related topics) to be the one to give approval to whatever new hook is proposed now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• @EF5: Do you have any interest in continuing this DYK? You mentioned withdrawing before and since the general eyre of the DYK team doesn't think either current hook is going to work, we'd need another - if you withdraw, you can save your precious time and spend it somewhere else - not like you spent a QPQ on this. If so, I'll defer this to the original nominator, and if they don't respond in a week, I'll reject this. Let me know if you're still interested. Departure– (talk) 14:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, just a bit frusturated. Once I finish up Draft:2020 Jonesboro tornado I'll come up with something; if that's rejected I'll just withdraw. ^EF⁵ 14:26, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@EF5 and Departure–: One possible option could be to agree to ALT1 since it seemed like the non-tornado specialists on DYK thought it was an okay hook. Would you be open to agreeing to ALT1 if it was the only way for the article to gain consensus to run? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

My main problem with that hook is that, as I brought up, it's a description from a non-expert (in fact, in this case, from an apparent primary source - Sullivan-area tornado recovery), and numerous other tornadoes, including many that themselves aren't notable enough for an article, are described the same way every year. Departure– (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: Well, if you and EF5 are unwilling to agree that hook and are unable to provide a suitable alternative, then there is no path forward for this nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, pinging @7kk: Would you like to pick up this nomination again? Me and EF5 haven't been able to come up with a hook and are going to defer this to you as the original nominator. Departure– (talk) 14:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with the "war zone" hook, tornado damage isn't usually called that. Give me at least a few hours to suggest a Cycloidal marks-related hook, however, assuming Departure won't change their mind. ^EF⁵ 14:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I'll also add that I said I'll come up with something less than an hour ago, was that missed? ^EF⁵ 15:02, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: I found a good quote from the city of Clarksville, Tennessee on this - "The term, 'war zone' is often overused in events such as this". Clarksville has hit by only an EF2 tornado, and I've seen it also used multiple times on EF1 tornado. It's a common term to the point city officials are noting the term's apparent overuse - even if it is always accurate to some degree. My issue with using it in this case is that it can be used to describe the damage of almost any tornado - hell, even the one you're working on now. Since this term can be used on almost any tornado, having it as a hook here means it's likely to be overused as a hook in the future, which isn't helping the "formulaic nature" another DYK official brought up in WT:DYK for tornado articles. No prejudice against finding another hook fact - that's probably the best way to go forward on this nomination. Departure– (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yay. Please give me a day to come up with something else, nowhere did I say that I was "unable to provide a suitable alternative". ^EF⁵ 15:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Take your time. Sorry, things are moving so quickly on this and I've gotten a lot of edit conflicts so it's been hard to keep straight what the current mood is. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right, things are moving so fast that people are jumping to assume I've just given up on the whole thing. Partially true, since I faux pull !voted out of frustration, but all I need's a bit of time to suggest something. ^EF⁵ 15:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Withdraw - A search found nothing else interesting. The cycloidal marks part could possibly meet WP:DYKINT, but given the ambiguous wording of that "guideline" I don't think it'll be perceived well. ^EF⁵ 17:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator. Perhaps it's more trouble than it's worth, but hey, you didn't waste a QPQ on it. Good luck on your Jonesboro DYK nom. Departure– (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and good luck on your Greenfield PR. :-) ^EF⁵ 18:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Ready to close - other nominator @7kk: hasn't shown any interest at all in this since nominating, so I think it's safe to close this one. Departure– (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I may bring up the issue of random people nominating articles (I don't think it's like GAN where you have to be a major contributor) at WT:DYK once I'm on better terms with the regulars there. ^EF⁵ 18:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

@Departure– and EF5: Just to clarify: would you rather withdraw the nomination rather than go with the "war zone" hook? The "war zone" option at least arguably meets DYKINT to the community. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I’ve already said I’m fine with the hook, can’t speak for Departure though. ^EF⁵ 21:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

FWIW I've also messaged 7kk to return to the nomination, although they haven't edited since the 11th. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

EF5 is off the hook for this one, and I'll be happy to help 7kk should they choose to pick this nom back up again. As stated, I still feel uncomfortable with the war zone hook. Departure– (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Given that the only remaining option was rejected by the nominator and they indicated they would rather withdraw the nomination, this is now closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)