Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tornadoes in Oklahoma/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) [1].

---

Tornadoes in Oklahoma

Tornadoes in Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/Tornadoes in Oklahoma/archive1

Nominator(s): E_F⁵ 01:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm back with another mega-list after the 300k-byte List of artwork at the United States Capitol complex failed; I decided that wasn't worth pursuing. This is a combination of several lists: A list of every (E)F3+ tornado in Oklahoma history (if I included every one, it'd be too long for a single article, so this is logically as complete as it'll get); A list of every tornado in Oklahoma by county; A list of other exceptional tornado events; A list of worst tornado years for Oklahoma; and I'm planning on adding more lists if I can come up with them. Following most of the mini-lists are a few blurbs of events that took place during that time period, obviously with images. I'm hoping this format can become the standard for "Tornadoes in ____" listicles. The main concerns I personally have are related to sourcing; I'd also like feedback on the general format, as this style has never been tried before. E_F⁵ 01:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

OlifanofmrTennat

I'll have a review up soon, always enjoy seeing Oklahoma on FLC. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Link Tornado in the first mention in the lead as its the main subject of the page and delink it in the body per MOS:OVERLINK

Done. E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• In "The majority of casualties took place along the tornado's track through Texas." link Texas

Done. E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• In "Tornadoes formed on that day across several Plains states including Missouri, Oklahoma, and Kansas." link plains and Kansas as it is their first mentions

Done. E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• "The town of Udall was especially hard" -> "The town of Udall, Kansas was especially hard" as its in Kansas and the article is about Oklahoma

Done. E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• "... hit Moore, Oklahoma.in which ..." remove the period between Oklahoma and in

Done. E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• In the sections "1925-1949", "1950-1974" "March 20, 1948", "May 3, 1999", Oklahoma is linked on the second mention, alternatively I don't know if linking Oklahoma is necessary.

Done. E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That's all I got ping when done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: How's it look? E_F⁵ 13:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Source review from Octave

I intend to review this soon for sourcing, including spot-checks. Please give me a holler if I don't post a review within a few days. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 17:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Original review: please disregard

Reviewed special:diff/1272655168 Reliability – a couple of queries and notes Ref 17: noting per WP:NEWSWEEK, post-2013 articles are generally unreliable but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I'd rather not rely on a Newsweek source, but I think this one is fine as it presents data from a reliable source (NOAA) Ref 18: what makes WorldAtlas a reliable source? I'm unfamiliar with the site, so the click-baity titles don't inspire confidence. There was a small RSN discussion from last year but that was inconclusive. I note it is listed in this document from Yale, but they specify a particular use for latitude and longitude Ref 43: this is a blog and should be removed unless shown to be written by a subject matter expert. It also currently redirects to a spam link Ref 52: noting that this is a blog, but Bill Murray appears to be a subject matter expert Ref 78: another blog, seems to be another case of subject matter experience Other than that, all other sources seem to be reliable Formatting consistency – these issues occur throughout the reference section and are not limited to examples given There is a mixture of MDY (e.g. ref 18), DMY (e.g. ref 7), and YMD (e.g. ref 1) in various reference parameters (date, access-date, archive-date) Both title (e.g. ref 13) and sentence (e.g. ref 17) cases are used in the reference section Inconsistent ISSNs (e.g. ref 58 vs. ref 59) Inconsistent work links (e.g. ref 58 vs. ref 59) and author links (e.g ref 49 vs. ref 67) Book date formats are inconsistent, please give year (e.g. ref 49) or month and year (e.g. ref 5), not both Inconsistent archive use (e.g. ref 7 vs. ref 8) Use of citation templates is inconsistent, including use of bare text references (e.g. ref 36) Publishers are given inconsistently, some have the company listed (e.g. ref 59) and some do not (e.g. ref 58) Please give website names, not URLs, in the website parameter (e.g. ref 3 vs. ref 4) Some citations use Surname, Forename (e.g. ref 89) formatting for author, while some use Forename Surname (e.g. ref 83) or Initial Forename (e.g. ref 10) Access date parameter is given inconsistently (e.g. ref 3 vs. ref 4) NWS website names are inconsistent (e.g. ref 8 vs. ref 9) Duplicate references – these need merged Refs 1 and 6 Refs 2 and 25 Refs 3 and 19 Refs 5, 32, 40, 42 and 49 Refs 8 and 50 Refs 9 and 26 Refs 12 and 51 Refs 29 and 141 Refs 30 and 33 Refs 35 and 39 Refs 56 and 65 Refs 57 and 68 Refs 58 and 62 Refs 59 and 71 Refs 75 and 80 Missing page numbers – the following references to books and periodicals cover too broad a page range and should have direct page numbers Ref 4 Ref 5 Ref 10 Ref 32 Ref 36d,f,g,h&k Ref 40 Ref 45 Ref 61 Ref 63 Ref 67 Ref 86 Other comments – unless otherwise stated, these issues are particular to the examples given Ref 4: missing date (apparently 2003 according to Scholar) Ref 10: link Yvette Richardson and Joshua Wurman Ref 13: missing author and date Ref 14: missing date (see URL) Ref 15: incorrect date Ref 18: missing author Ref 27: missing author Ref 31: remove (NCEI) as the full name is given Ref 36d: delink Texas, also missing author Ref 36g&h: missing author Ref 36j: (USWB) not needed as in ref 31 Ref 36k: missing author and access-date Ref 38: link Robert C. Miller and add missing date Ref 41: deadlink, missing access date, author, and date; also remove author name from the title Ref 43: remove superfluous pipe character Ref 44: "US Department of Commerce, NOAA" is not an author Ref 45: move newspaper name from title Ref 46: this reference is bare text and should be converted into a full book citation, including isbn and publisher Ref 47: add date based on URL Ref 52: add author and date Ref 55: this is a deadlink Ref 56: "National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office in Norman, Oklahoma" is a publisher, not author. Ref 57: remove "Yale Climate Connections" from title Ref 61: link Howard Bluestein Ref 63: link Howard Bluestein Ref 67: this is missing a lot of co-authors Ref 72: link Joshua Wurman Ref 76: "Journal, The Daily News" is not an author Ref 81: incorrect date Ref 86: missing title, "Lompoc Review" needs moved to work, "17 March 1922" needs moved to date, "California digital newspaper collection" needs moved to via Ref 87: missing publisher Thoughts I'm sorry, but even before spotchecks I think there are too many issues here. Based on my review, I oppose per the criteria, specifically WP:Citing sources. The source reliability seems fine (albeit with a few minor problems), but there are major consistency issues, not to mention unreasonably wide page ranges, duplicate references, dead links, and incorrect formatting. With apologies, UpTheOctave! • 8va? 17:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: I've gone ahead and boldly nuked everything not a list; you aren't the first person to bring up the non-list stuff. The vast majority of issues you brought up were refs within the non-list blurbs. Still any chance? E_F⁵ 18:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider withdrawing this for the time being to give it a bit more work and polish it up @EF5. Removing a large chunk like this 15 minutes after some feedback may not be appropriately thinking something through, and may not be giving the article the amount of time and care that it needs to be the best it can be. Additionally, I noticed you added rowspan="1" in a number of instances. You do not add a rowspan parameter when the span is one. Additionally, if you do add a rowspan, you are meant to use a scope of "rowgroup" instead of "row". Hey man im josh (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll think about it; I'll wait till I'm no longer frustrated and can make good decisions. I've removed the rowspan=1s. E_F⁵ 18:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I've decided not to, the things I removed were largely forked from other articles anyways and this would have been the third FAC/FLC I've withdrawn, which I don't want to happen yet again. I've fixed the date issues (all refs should be in M/D/Y and spelled out now), removed most/all of the unreliable sources not removed during the nuke (WorldAtlas in specific), changed row to rowgroup as advised, linked Thomas P. Grazulis, merged refs that need merged, and I'll get to the page numbers shortly. E_F⁵ 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

EF5, I’m confused by this approach as formatting issues of this scale aren't usually resolved by cutting large swathes of content. If anything, this makes me question the list’s comprehensiveness and stability. I recommend taking time to think about the structure of the list: was there a proper removal rationale for the deleted content, and is the list comprehensive without it? A full re-review (and retraction of my opposition) will be reserved for when those questions are answered, as I want to make sure the list is stable. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

1. Yes, basically all of the content was forked from other articles and disrupted the form of the list. Including some events means including them all (per 3a), and as a result the list would be far too long. Readers can find more information on the articles themselves, where the list links to. If you want a policy, most of the blurbs were newer, which is WP:RECENTISM (although I know that means add older ones, not remove newer ones, but see below).

2. Also yes, the list still does what it was meant to do (list intense+ tornadoes, by month, by county, worst years, deadliest, costliest). if anything, I had added the event blurbs as “filler content”, which just means I added it to make the list longer. I wouldn’t call it “unstable”, I did one large removal and everything else kept is still relevant. There comes a point where an article/list needs split, and if I re-added event blurbs for every tornado event in history I could safely say that it’d need split, making the FLC futile and ultimately ruining it. E_F⁵ 21:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This situation is quite irregular, but I'm going to stick with it and re-review. I'm taking your word for the list's stability, so if it substantially changes again from this version, I will be bowing out. I will provide a new review soon—for now I've collapsed my original review and oppose. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. I've fixed a few refs I had missed earlier, although that is far from a substantial change. E_F⁵ 21:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

One more quick thing, I have replaced the TPG (Thomas P. Grazulis) references with Tornado Archive references, which basically takes the book (which is upwards of $1,400 USD!), NCEI and SPC (Storm Prediction Center) and makes it an interactive map. Should be reliable as it's just taking information from reliable sources and making it accessible to the public as visual "track maps". It's also been mentioned in a few high-class studies, if that helps anything. E_F⁵ 17:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that WeatherWriter has access to both Grazulis big books, and is willing to verify information if needed. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Will do if needed. :) E_F⁵ 17:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I can get access to the TPG books if needed—through a library of course, my wallet would not thank me—but I'm fine to review with this version. I plan to begin my review tonight, please don't change the references again as it will throw off my comments. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't change anything else. E_F⁵ 18:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

You added a second set of scopes to the table for some reason. I have some pretty major concerns regarding the stability of this article at this point. At this point, I'm feeling, even more so than before, like this fails point 6 of the FL criteria. I also have concerns about point 3 (comprehensiveness) based on the nuking that you did of the article. I'd like to once again encourage a withdrawal for the time being, as this feels rushed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Fine, I'll withdraw. I will ask, assuming I finish working on it by, let's say, 2 weeks from now, how long should I wait till renominating? "Doesn't change significantly from a day-to-day basis" is pretty vague, as most articles eventually change. Feel free to answer on my talk page, as I'm genuinely curious. E_F⁵ 19:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: withdrawn. E_F⁵ 19:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

There's also an online version I just found, although it's pretty clunky. E_F⁵ 18:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Date becomes !scope=col | Date. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 12:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.