Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Track of the 1925 Tri-State tornado

• ... that the 1925 Tri-State tornado (track pictured) had a path length of 219 miles (352 km) across three states?

• Source: https://www.weather.gov/pah/1925Tornado_ss

• ALT1: ... that the 1925 Tri-State tornado (track pictured) was the deadliest in United States history? Source: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/killers.html
• ALT2: ... that despite being on the ground for almost four hours, no known photographs exist of the 1925 Tri-State tornado (track pictured)? Source: https://www.weather.gov/pah/1925tornado_p
• ALT3: ... that meteorologists stated that the 1925 Tri-State tornado (track pictured) was "unusually severe"? Source: https://inside.nssl.noaa.gov/nsslnews/2013/05/scientists-re-visit-the-tri-state-tornado/
• ALT4: ... that the 1925 Tri-State tornado (track pictured) is often refered to as the "Great Tri-State tornado"? Source: https://kids.britannica.com/students/article/Tri-State-Tornado-of-1925/623410
• ALT5: ... that the 1925 Tri-State tornado (track pictured) hit nine schools? Source: https://www.iccsafe.org/building-safety-journal/bsj-hits/today-in-history-the-tri-state-tornado/
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Christum wir sollen loben schon, BWV 121
• Comment: Very surprised this tornado didn't have an article prior to today.

Converted from a redirect by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 14 past nominations.

E_F⁵ 15:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC).

• Per WP:DYKSPLIT, splits from non-new articles are not considered "recently created"; instead, they are treated as expansions from the copied material. Since the third revision seems to be the point where you switched from copying to writing new prose, I'll calculate from there. That version had 23601 characters of prose, and the current version has 26147 – nowhere near close to a fivefold expansion. However, I see that you have nominated the article for GA; if it passes, that would make it eligible for DYK. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh boy

Welp, here we go with another minor tornado debate. While the tornado is widely accepted as a F5, it never officially received that rating and thus should not be marked as such in the infobox. Pinging @Departure–: and @MarioProtIV:. While I'm here, I'll say that it shocked me how this tornado never had an article till yesterday, I mean 700 deaths and just a section??? E_F⁵ 14:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of an official rating, I believe the widespread consensus is to include a widely accepted rating. See also 1883 Rochester tornado. In the US, the NWS hasn't rated a lot of older tornadoes like the ESSL or other agencies / individuals do, but remember that marking it as EFU or FU is also incorrect, as FU is an actual rating for no damage observed and unless a source can be found for FU, it shouldn't be marked as such. A blank infobox is also not ideal when it accepted to have produced F5 damage, a claim that has been reiterated by experts and agencies. Departure– (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I ended up marking it with "no official rating". E_F⁵ 14:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

EFU / FU is an unsourced rating, EF? / F? is also less than ideal. Perhaps we can use Unofficial F5 rating in the infobox instead? That doesn't display well in the infobox, though. Maybe this is something we should take to the creators of Template:Infobox weather event. Ideally, it should both display that the tornado's accepted rating is F5, while making clear the rating is unofficial. Perhaps an |unofficial-rating= parameter could be used. Departure– (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. The confusion with readers will be that the infobox doesn't clarify whether the rating is official or unofficial, and makes it seem like the tornado was an F5, which it technically wasn't. E_F⁵ 14:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

edit war

@EF5 @Dovah12333 Please instead of edit warring. Talk on the talk page. •Cyberwolf•talk? 20:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Dovah12333: I have again removed the "likely far higher" thing you keep adding; it's completely unsourced. E_F⁵ 14:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Grazulis himself has stated as such, and it is well-known that the 695 figure is not accurate. You can even just add up the death tolls in each area that are confirmed and it gets you more than 695. 12 in MO (officially), 37 in Gorham, 234 in Murphysboro, 69 in De Soto, 14 in Bush, 192 in Franklin County, 65 in Hamilton and White Counties and 46 in Griffin and 45 in Princeton. Dovah12333 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Please give a source to your claims. "Grazulis said so" is not a source. E_F⁵ 20:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Cite a source then. Departure– (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Have you read anything I just said.....the death toll of 695 is derived from the red cross and their own report they made in 1926 which you can find online for yourself. But the true death toll is greater than this. I am aware of the citations on wikipedia and the rules, hence why I said "likely greater", but you can just do the math of the figures in each location....its more than 695. Dovah12333 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing's going to stick without a source. All it takes is a reference citation, and so long as the claim is given due weight, it stays in the article. Departure– (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Orient Mine Coal Tipple OR Tag

I have added an original research tag after the "At the Orient Mine, a large multi-ton coal tipple was blown over and rolled by the tornado" sentence in the article. From off-Wikipedia communication, I have information this may be false. This sentence, however, is cited by a book I do not have currently in my possession. I will make a note to try to see if my local university library has this book to double check this information. If someone else happens to have this book in there possession, I would like this sentence to be double checked if it is actually cited by the book reference. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoInformation12: This may be a hopeless verification check, but Wikipedia's XTools let me know you added the sentence (back in August 2013) with the The 1925 Tri-State Tornado's Devastation in Franklin County, Hamilton County, and White County, Illinois 2012 book reference. I do see that through the revision ages, that reference was removed from that sentence and it is now cited with the Death Rides the Sky: The Story of the 1925 Tri-State Tornado 2011 book reference. Do you, by chance, have either of those two books? Until TornadoInformation12 or another editor can verify that sentence is cited from either of those books, I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentence, given it has switched physical book references over the last decade and I do not know which editor in the last decade switched the physical book references. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This image shown here is photoshopped and not the real tri state tornado

File:The 1925 Tri-State Tornado Photograph.png This is not the image of the Tri State Tornado it is a heavily photoshopped of Wichita Falls 1979 tornado that Jeremy Kappell did in the 2015 blog just to fool everyone. Here is the link when this original image came from. Image of the Wichita Falls 1979 Torando CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And now it's gone. Thanks, Kappell. Departure– (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

For the 2nd time, I have re-added the NFF. When it was re-added the first time, we all stated it was a fake image. However, all our knowledge that Kappell was wrong is based on original research and does not qualify to remove it. So, I am re-adding the NFF unless we get a RS which directly says the photo is false. We need a directly source saying Kappell is wrong, not Wikipedians ourselves saying it is wrong. Weird case of verifiability, not truth. There is a reason the caption says "claimed" and the photo is not used in the infobox. Despite knowing it is false, we cannot use our own research to justify the removal of stuff on Wikipedia, and we need an RS which counters Kappell's claim. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf: See this discussion here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Our own research
Is literally overlaying the image and it’s blatantly fake •Cyberwolf•talk? 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Merely taking the two images side by side will show its photoshopped
The cloud formations are the same the funnel little second leg is the same •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is by definition what original research is. You, as a Wikipedian, found out something a reliable source stated is wrong. However, Wikipedians ourselves are not reliable (WP:RSPWP). We need a reliable source which directly says Kappell is wrong. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s a blog post your literally saying a blog post is reliable •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean my eyes are reliable sources and he is wrong overlay images same tornado same ground same foliage and same foliage on the right bottom hand corner •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:NEWSBLOG. The difference here is, the blog is from a reliable news organization, WDRB. It is not a self-published blog like on Blogger. It is written by a meteorologist for the news organization itself. Either way, here is the thing, we as Wikipedia are not saying the photo is of the tornado. We, as Wikipedia, are merely saying WDRB meteorologist Kappell says this is a photograph. Whether it is right or wrong is technically irrelevant. Wikipedia only cares about verifiability. For example, right now, the Tornadoes of 2022 article has known false information and false statements on it. However, there is no reliable secondary sources that exist to counter the RS claims, so they remain. You can see that situation explained here: verifiability, not truth in action. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

then why say it is a photo of the tornado so we just mislead people knowingly cause some fucking dude from a reliable source says yes. Polybius (urban legend) is what happens when we do this shit. Im here to maintain the legitimacy of this encyclopedia •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The caption in the article is: "The photograph claimed by WDRB meteorologist Jeremy Kappell to be the Tri-State tornado". Wikipedia is merely saying Kappell says this is a photograph of the tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

He doesnt own the image tho where’s and who is the original photo author •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

cyberwolf, I have a compromise. The photograph itself is not going to be in the article. However, the following sentences will still be in the article, "According to the National Weather Service, no photographs or film reels of the Tri-State tornado were taken or are known to exist. The tornado was frequently described by witnesses as...[...]...However, WDRB meteorologist Jeremy Kappell claimed in 2015 to have “one of the few photographs that have been preserved of what is believed to have been of The Great Tri-State Tornado”.. That maintains the integrity of Wikipedia's verifiability policy/no original research policy and also helps not trick readers into seeing the actual photo from Wikipedia. Everything mentioned there is factually true, since we are quoting Kappell. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s good •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes protocol needs to be broken this is a scenario where this needs to be removed. You admit the info is false then stop adding it I have the fucking original picture from noaa and it dates to 1979 •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

So what we have is a blatantly fake image where the image creator doesn't own the copyright, and Wikipedia keeping it because of a lack of claims against the image's efficacy. I think it shouldn't be included based on the serious doubt of the existence of any images of the tornado if nothing else. We all know it's fake and including it would hurt the article, but policy dictates that it's allowable and others want it included, which bothers me to no end. Departure– (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

same •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I have literally sent you a link showing the exact same image, from an NWS webpage. I think we should WP:IAR here, since it's obviously the Wichita Falls image. Policies can have exceptions, and this is an obvious exception. Feel free to get a 4O (fourth-opinion). E_F⁵ 15:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm in the same boat. I want Wikipedia to be true and accurate, but after the WP:VNTIA incident on Tornadoes of 2022 where I was on the verge of being blocked, I sort of caved and started following the verifiability, not truth guidelines on Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm still ticked off that an RFC with community consensus actually dictated that 100% confirmed false statements should remain in the article over the right info. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

wikipedia:Iar •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This situation is killing any hopes of this article making it to good or featured status, which kills me as this is top-importance and could very easily make it there. I think we should get some higher-authority eyes on this situation; I feel we've reached WP:BLUE levels of disagreement with policy. Departure– (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

if I die on this hill knowing what I did was right, I will die with grace. No tears no anger a simple goodbye to all the good people I met and the lessons I learned from the various people from all backgrounds and ethnicities. The real fact is I am not afraid of unblockables, ANI. The real thing I’m afraid of is the ever so degrading nature of the information revolution, and most notably myself. To survive and enjoy editing Wikipedia you will have to fight through definite challenges from users who seem to big to fall but that couldn’t be further away from the truth •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:IAR does not mean single-handedly overturn a community consensus via RFC. IAR can be a justification in a discussion or to do an edit, but right now, if myself or anyone goes to change the false info on the Tornadoes of 2022 article, they are undoing the community consensus by themselves. We can use IAR here to remove the photo, but I am against removing the quote by Kappell, since there is nothing factually wrong with that sentence/quote in the article. The compromise we did (i.e. the photo itself is not on Wikipedia) solves the whole concern you had. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The compromise, as much as I'm in favor of it, is unfortunately not going to stop any other editor from potentially re-adding it later down the road and standing on the basis of policy. This issue may very well come back at twice its current vigor with editors much less willing to compromise and more willing to die on this hill. Short of contacting a news agency to get a secondary source to comment, there exist enough personal accounts of the tornado that free use media can be created from just descriptions. I'm not a good artist but I might get to that in my free time. I'll also argue that I think we're giving too much credit to this blog's image anyway. Even if it was true, wouldn't it have reached the ears of a higher-quality source by now? Departure– (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god.... You are trying to cause a whole drama with the image that is really photoshopped and fooled everyone... Can you please stop. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree; this is getting way out of hand. While I'm at it, I'll go add a bunch of fake tornado images to articles and challenge their removal, since "there's no evidence of them not being of the tornado". E_F⁵ 15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

• Everyone, calm down. Discussion is as good as done. The fake photograph has been removed from the article. Per this discussion here and several editors going on about WP:IAR (Ignore All Rules), the article now reads: "According to the National Weather Service, no photographs or film reels of the Tri-State tornado were taken or are known to exist....[...]...However, WDRB meteorologist Jeremy Kappell claimed in 2015 to have “one of the few photographs that have been preserved of what is believed to have been of The Great Tri-State Tornado”. Although, this photograph is of the 1979 Wichita Falls F4 tornado and not the 1925 Tri-State tornado." The ending sentence was added per this discussion of ignoring all rules, specifically the reliable source needed guideline. Hopefully everyone is happy and satisfied with the article now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  As I stated in a previous comment, I personally would be interested in creating a mockup image of what the tornado may have actually looked like based on descriptions and CC-0'ing it for general use, if nothing else for the sole purpose of killing this argument as soon as possible (I wasn't party, is it true that the Dead Man Walking photo was removed from NFF use at Jarrell despite being the subject of discussion?).

  March 18, 2025 is going to be the 100th anniversary of this tornado, which has the strongest argument for being the worst in United States history, so as I told @EF5: we should really be working on getting this article to at the very least good article status. It's at a good length to where I believe it'd be better brought to featured status and put on the mainpage on March 18. Departure– (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Well there is a website of the art of the Tri State Tornado made by Todd Atteberry shown here.

  https://www.gothichorrorstories.com/journal/scars-of-the-1925-tri-state-tornado/ CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Argh, no copyright data for attribution! Maybe this could be added as an NFF, but I'll take my chances with creating my own free CC0 image instead. Departure– (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that could be a issue. Since it is not officially had a copyright data but I will take my chance and uploaded it. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  All right I had uploaded the Wikimedia image of the Tri State Tornado. I had found info of when this art was first made.

  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tri_State_Tornado.jpg CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why did you upload it to Commons when there's no indication of copyright? You could have just linked it in this discussion. Departure– (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  My bad I had changed it right now because I am not too sure but thanks for correcting me. CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Don’t upload it ye…… well im contacting Todd with and inquiry on the painting/ art •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  This is the art I am talking about @Departure–

  https://i0.wp.com/www.gothichorrorstories.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Tri-State-Tornado-4-1024x1024.jpg?ssl=1 CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  I fucked up never mind ṐoṒ •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Nah i may call lmao (i love this image its so fucking cool) •Cyberwolf•talk? 16:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Come to think of it, I don't think it's a painting at all. It's another tornado image superimposed onto an image of the area of Southern Illinois where it happened. You're not looking at the Tri-State or an original depiction of it. Departure– (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah its well well well done •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you're looking for similar tornadoes, from the descriptions I've heard my mind goes to the aforementioned Wichita Falls tornado, as well as Joplin 2011, Belvidere 1967, Custer City/Hollister 2024, El Reno 2013, Will County, IL 2008, Parkersburg 2008, and, most of all, Lemont, IL 1976. There's a really good video by Ted Fujita himself on that one here (note, this has been AI upscaled to a higher resolution, and when the tornado appears at 3:36 the resolution is very bad. A much better version of just the tornado video exists here and it very well fits the description of "boiling clouds" given for the Tri-State). Departure– (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You forgot about the '98 Columbus tornado XD. E_F⁵ 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a tornado there? Could you link to an image or video? You're from there, my area of expertise is Illinois tornadoes. Departure– (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Columbus, Nebraska*. Either way, sure. E_F⁵ 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct, Todd said himself he overlaid it •Cyberwolf•talk? 21:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Im working on the copyright data talking to Todd right now •Cyberwolf•talk? 21:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

How dare you call it Mayfield! It's like calling this one the "Murphysboro tornado"...

Ah, forgot about that one indeed! From what I can tell, that's closest to Custer City and definitely ticks the boxes for the amorphous and non-traditional aspects of the Tri-State. I've gotten a very basic pencil illustration down but I'll keep working towards digitizing and perfecting my illustration of the Tri-State over the coming weeks. From what I've drawn so far, it's been converging towards the appearance of the 2013 El Reno tornado, which I suppose as the other most infamous tornado in US history is fitting. Departure– (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And let's not forget Trousdale! :) E_F⁵ 17:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

That more or less fills the same void as the Will County example. Overall, I'd say the closest appearance-wise would be either Lemont or El Reno, and the closest behaviour-wise would be Mayfield (and yes, I'm going to call it that). Departure– (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. Anyways, let's keep it on topic. :P E_F⁵ 18:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that would be OR. :) E_F⁵ 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:IAR are both policy, might I remind you? I'll take a state of cold conflict and truth in positive violation of policy over this argument any day. Departure– (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but there's times where you shouldn't use IAR, making an image based off of things a bunch of random people have said is OR, same as "this is an image of the Tri-State tornado!" E_F⁵ 15:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

...is it though? We have attribution for what they've said. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. E_F⁵ 16:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I do have attribution for "...a wall of smoke", "...looking like boiling clouds" / "...a dark cloud, sweeping along the ground" and being accompanied by powerful non-tornadic hail and wind, and "...a wall of destruction" with no similarity to a standard tornado funnel". Free media does exist of the damage, but are you saying that free media based on these descriptions would be original research, even if I cited these sources where the image appears? Departure– (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am. What kind of cloud? How do you even picture a "wall of destruction"? Was the wall made of brick, or stone? It's too ambiguous. E_F⁵ 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Regardless, I do think this article lacks illustration that a free image would fill, so I'm going to, if not die on this hill, at least ask perhaps at the help desk if this is acceptable practice. Departure– (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No need •Cyberwolf•talk? 07:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Water Survey images

While the artist's reconstruction, editor illustration, and fake photo discussions have quieted down, I've discovered a few images on this page are sourced to an Illinois Water Survey paper that isn't an NWS publication so I've nominated said images for deletion. The images are the diagram of the tornadocyclone and the annotated path of the tornado's track. Departure– (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

@EF5:, in case you're wondering, I don't think anyone owns the actual shape of the tornado, nor its track, so free media could be made (and hopefully, if made, would be less controversial than other editor-created media. I'm going to make that image no matter if it ends up on this page or not.) Departure– (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I simply agree and also OR can be stupid ignore all or arguments •Cyberwolf•talk? 15:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Prose

Lede

• second-deadliest worldwide would move through - can we not use "would". It did happen. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, Removed. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've never seen an infobox with five images before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

See 2007 Greensburg tornado and 2011 Joplin tornado. Heck, World War I has six! E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, there's zero chance I would look up the Great War. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• Considering this is notable specifically for the death count. Maybe we should state what it is, rather than give a rounded figure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, added exact casualty amount.. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• The tornado would then move - again with "would". Id go through an reword to avoid it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, changed "would move" to "moved". E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• You need to cite notes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, Removed note. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• 20 of whom perished immediately and another five in the days to come - seems like excessive detail for lede. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done, Removed. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Review meta comments

• I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Death count

As some other user interjected, the death count is disputed. I also noticed the Monthly Weather Review issue from the time marked the deaths as 742; as this is a primary source as reliable as any other, should this be included? File:The Tornadoes of March 18, 1925.pdf; the table on Page 4 indicates tornado A (the Tri-State, NOT the whole outbreak) as 742 deaths, 2771 injuries. Departure– (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Sure, seems reliable. E_F⁵ 02:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Both the 695 and 742 would come from the U.S. government. Two thoughts: (1) Set the death toll to be a range…i.e…695–742 (citing both the NWS webpage for 695 and MWR for 742) or (2) Bullet point (similar to 2013 El Reno tornado’s infobox wind speed) noting the distinction between the U.S. Weather Bureau’s count and modern-day NWS count…since both are the “official” sources for the info. Thoughts on either of those? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think either bullet points or a note are most appropriate. Setting a range when there are only two figures seems unhelpful. Departure– (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Argh, it just clicked! The expanded figure is almost certainly due to uncertainty about the tornado's path length. What in the 1925 Tri-State tornado outbreak is marked as multiple tornadoes of the same family is marked as just one here.

  ...actually, it appears only the Tri-State tornado itself from its family is on the outbreak page. It's not clear at all whether or not this was the family as a whole or just the single tornado for the inflated figure - it could easily go either way. This whole situation explains why I focus on post-1950 outbreaks where information fog like this hardly exists. Departure– (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  What I would do in this situation is write both with a note saying something along the line of “sources/estimates differ”. the wildfire update guy that also writes about other weather (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)