# Talk:2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado

I did deliberate on creating an article on this over the past week, but is it really needed? It was pretty much the only tornado from the May 6 outbreak, and I think it's good as it is as a section. I don't think it's at the same level as Greenfield or even Elkhorn, because it didn't cause too much damage, nor has much come out for rebuilding, wider impacts in the region, or impacts to the town. Of course it's impactful, but I think this article would be best merged into the Tornado outbreak of May 6-10, 2024 article - in other words, it's comparable to the 2024 Sulphur tornado article - and even that I honestly think has a better argument for inclusion. Departure– (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. If the Elkhorn article is considered notable, this surely is. As stated previously, notability and impact aren't the same. Planning on expanding, so CFORK shouldn't be an issue. It being "the only tornado from the May 6 outbreak" doesn't matter; see Jarrell, Tri-State, Wayne, Washington, Snyder, among others. EF5 15:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Departure–: Here's a list of sources discussing the tornado 3+ months post-event:
2 weeks ago
2 weeks ago
August 2024
December 2024
December 2024
September 2024
December 2024
There's more, although this should be enough.
Here's a list of significant sources discussing the tornado:

USA Today
New York Times
FOX Weather
AP News
CBS News
CBS News
NBC News
CBS News (over 2 months later!)
I think this is pretty clearly notable. EF5 16:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. I think these sources are satisfactory then; I won't open an AFD like I was briefly contemplating. What I'm most upset about is the 2003 Manchester tornado which literally wiped Manchester, South Dakota off the map but doesn't have its own article and really lacks sources too. Departure– (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Here's my AfD table, too:

EF5 16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

One more thing. @EF5: I don't think the target should be 2024 Barnsdall tornado - as seen with the hotel video section, it should be 2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado - that is a redlink and you can move it to mainspace now instead of waiting for the speedy deletion. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done. EF5 18:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 21:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Jacobi Jackson (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Will be reviewing this article in the coming days for Good Article consideration.
Criterion 1: A Good Article is Well-Written 
This article felt well-written, easy to understand, even for people who do not have a meteorological background, and its scope felt appropriate. The length was appropriate enough to have a discussion on the meteorological synopsis leading up to the tornado, insight into how the tornado fluctuated in intensity, and the aftermath of the tornado. I did not find any grammatic or stylistic errors, or much complex jargon that would confuse readers unfamiliar with meteorology. It was easy to read and understand all throughout. 
Its sections are logically segmented. The lead section does a great job of recapitulating the article by discussing the impact this tornado had and relating it to the larger ongoing regional tornado outbreak. Did not find any questionable language or opinions or biases coming through. 
Criterion 2: A Good Article Must be Verifiable with No Original Research 
There are a significant number of references, all catalogued at the end of the article, ranging from National Weather Service bureaus to national and local news outlets. The former sources are clearly verifiable, as NOAA and the NWS are reputable, trusted sources for meteorological data. They are commonly cited for other meteorological articles on Wikipedia. There are no signs of the authors of the article conducting research on their own to describe this major tornado, such as themselves going out to survey damage or collecting weather data on their own. I do not see any signs of copyright infringement or plagiarism anywhere in the article. 
Criterion 3: A Good Article Must Be Broad in its Coverage 
The main aspect of this article is that a large and destructive tornado hit two communities in Oklahoma and created a wide path of destruction. The article does a great job of putting this devastating tornado into context as it mentions how this tornado exacerbated conditions in these communities, seeing they were hit by another tornado earlier in the season. It also mentioned how there were exceptional meteorological circumstances, courtesy of the larger tornado outbreak ongoing at the time, that contributed to large, violent tornadoes like this one. 
The main part of the article begins with a meteorological synopsis of the tornado and the ongoing tornado outbreak, lending credence to the fact that the environment across the region was prime for tornadoes. In this section, it does mention the tornado that occurred a month earlier, which somewhat feels oddly placed, but it does include a brief meteorological synopsis of it. The article then returns back with a more specific focus on the May Barnsdall/Bartlesville tornado. It features a very detailed account of the tornado track, how it fluctuated in intensity during its duration, and the degree of damage it caused. It then discusses the aftermath of the tornado in Barnsdall/Bartlesville and the surrounding communities, and how the media was influenced by it. Nothing in the article feels unnecessary or unneeded. It does a great job of staying on topic all throughout. It opens with a broader scope, then in the middle of the article gets more detailed on the main topic, and then closes with again a broader scope, discussing the significance of this powerful tornado. 
Criterion 4: A Good Article Must Be Neutral 
This article appears neutral in its entirety. The authors' opinions do not seem to come through the article. It is written from an objective viewpoint, stating how meteorologists were assessing the conditions leading up to this tornado outbreak, how this particular tornado unfolded, and including two examples of how this tornado was referenced in media. There aren't any sources that are disproportionately cited more than any others. The authors also do not tell the readers how they felt about the viral TikTok video of the tornado, or the infamous photograph taken in the aftermath of the tornado damage. The authors describe them from a neutral point of view.
Criterion 5: A Good Article Must Be Stable 
In looking at the edit history of this article, there do not appear to be an large amount of edits and reverts in a short time span that might lend credence to an edit war. What helps is that the article is about an event that happened in the past, with ample meteorological data to describe this event. That data is not actively being disputed, and anything that happens in the future related to this tornado, such as recovery efforts, isn't encyclopedic, so it does not need to be added. Unless this area unfortunately happens to be hit by another tornado, I do not see the need for any significant edits in the future, so it should remain stable for a long time.
Criterion 6: A Good Article Must Be Illustrated 
The article features numerous media, from radar imagery, a photograph of the tornado itself, and images of the damage in the wake of the tornado. In the right pane of the page, the article features radar imagery displaying the reflectivity, velocity, rotation, and correlation coefficient, all beneficial for readers interested in the meteorological aspects in understanding the sheer strength of this tornado. The article then includes Convective Outlooks from the Storm Prediction Center, illustrating that these areas of Oklahoma were squarely in the path of the highest probability for tornadoes, and severe weather, in general. The article then displays a few images of destruction in the aftermath of the tornado, demonstrating the significance of this tornado. All images in this article serve a purpose, feature citations and have descriptive captions.
What Cannot Be a Good Article 
This article is clearly not a stand-alone list, portal, disambiguation page, stub or featured article. None of these are applicable for this article.
Conclusion 
This article has a strong case for being considered a Wikipedia Good Article. My analysis shows it passes each criteria in many ways, and does not show any characteristics that would immediately disqualify it from being considered a Good Article.

@Jacobi Jackson: if you don't mind, could you take a quick look at the sourcing and make sure it meets the GA criteria as well (and maybe a spotcheck)? Deciding whether an article should or shouldn't be a Good Article is your choice; instructions for closing a nomination can be found at WP:GANI. EF5  18:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
The sourcing in the article looks really good - the meteorological synopsis and tornado summary sections are particularly cited well, with nearly all citations being from NOAA, the NWS/SPC and local news/media outlets, the former being strong sources in articles like these. The sections toward the end that comment on the aftermath of the tornado are also well-cited and the citations appear in appropriate locations. All images in the article are also cited. At the time of the comment, I see this article has 37 citations and while it isn't a long article, it does feel like a good amount. The only thing I see working against the article from a sourcing standpoint is that the introductory section isn't cited at all but features many details which probably warrant a citation, especially information on the deaths/injuries, the damage cost of the tornado, and that it was rated an EF4. One could argue that most of this information is restated later in the article and cited then, but it might not hurt to re-cite them at the beginning. With that being said, I think overall the sourcing is really good, but would be stronger if the introductory information was cited appropriately.
Unless you have any further questions / requests for me, I can close this GA nomination. I think this article is strong in all six criteria and does not feature anything which would immediately disqualify it from GA consideration. Jacobi Jackson (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2025 (UTC)