Talk:2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 14, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
May 15, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Disaster management Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance).

14 deaths[edit]

14 deaths.

That is the current total, but that could easily rise as they are still going through rubble. CrazyC83 20:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, I heard on CNN that "thousands" of homes were either destroyed or demaged.

19 dead now. It will probably go higher still. CrazyC83 21:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much higher? Over a hundred?

20 Confirmed Dead Now

Single tornado or outbreak?[edit]

I am somewhat confused, as some sources (i.e. the NWS Melbourne map) suggest that it was one tornado all the way along (or perhaps a derecho) but other sources (i.e. SPC) suggest multiple tornadoes indeed touched down. Should this be treated as an outbreak, a mini-outbreak anchored by one bad tornado, or a single tornado? CrazyC83 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming[edit]

I think the title could be shortened; if no other outbreaks happened, then 2007 Groundhog Day tornado might be enough... – Chacor 02:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, indeed. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In almost every article, "Tornado" and "Tornado Outbreak" is indeed capitalized as they are part of the event name. As for the 2007 Groundhog Day Tornado (or Tornado Outbreak, depending on how everything is confirmed) idea, I like that one actually. Might be worth a move. CrazyC83 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Tampa National Weather Service site refers it as the Sumter County Tornado, so 2007 Sumter County, Florida Tornado might be more official. Here's the link for the NWS report, but it might not last long. The link provides some damage pics and other stats that would be very useful to the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except all 20 deaths, and the most serious damage, was in Lake County (under NWS Melbourne jurisdiction). CrazyC83 17:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, at the time I didn't know there was more than one tornado. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also remember seeing news reports about this storm threatening Hernando County. There were actually news reports of funnell clouds being spotted in places like Istachatta, Lake Lindsey and even south of Brooksville. Either way, 2007 Groundhog Day tornado could still serve as a redirect to this article. ----DanTD (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
A couple of minor tweaks to the sentence structure, grammar, and punctuation, but nothing major. The prose is clearly written and easy to understand.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All major information is backed up be reliable sources. Most information is from the NWS and National Climactic Data Service, but other sources are used as well.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article covers the key aspects of this event, including a synopsis of the storms themselves, their impact, and the aftermath.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
There are no major WP:NPOV issues.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Most of the recent editing was done by two users; there's no active edit wars going on. Sufficient time has elapsed since the event so that the article can be written without rapidly changing information.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images used have appropriate captions and tags. The two images under impact and aftermath do have tags stating that, "The categories of this image should be checked." So this should be addressed at some point. But this is not critical for GA.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, the article meets the GA criteria, and can be listed. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text review[edit]

I was asked to look at the alt text. The first image (the map) has alt text "A map displaying the path of the three tornadoes." which doesn't really give the gist of the map. It's obvious to the sighted reader where the tornadoes went, and this info should be given to the visually impaired reader too. The second map has two misspellings "Floridan" (should be "Florida"?) and "peninnsula", and wastes too much time talking about colors (which are irrelevant details) and doesn't give important points such as where was the line of thunderstorms? and where were they the most severe? Please see WP:ALT#Maps for more advice. For the 3rd image "one side's worth" is phrased oddly; how about something like "the houses on one side" and "the houses on the other side"? The 4th image looks good. Thanks for working on the alt text, by the way. Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]