# Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado

I suggest that you revert the move adding the ",", as it breaks traditional tornado naming conventions and is not grammatically proper. SirMemeGod  14:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind.  SirMemeGod  14:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I think if a potential renomination were to happen, the following suggestions should be implemented:
I'm not sure this article meets criterion 1.c., particularly: "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature...". I did some digging and found some high-quality sources that could be used: 

Swope, Nick; Rozdilsky, Jack (2014). "High School Football as a Catalyst for Disaster Recovery: The Case of the November 17, 2013, Washington Illinois Tornado". Natural Hazards Center. University of Colorado Boulder. Retrieved 1 November 2025.
Shimon III, Edward J. (2014). "Investigating the Role of Wave-like Reflectivity Segments during the 17 November 2013 EF-4 Washington, Illinois Tornado". 27th Conference on Severe Local Storms. American Meteorological Society. Retrieved 1 November 2025.
Spialek, Matthew L.; Czlapinski, Heidi M.; Houston, J. Brian (1 August 2016). "Disaster communication ecology and community resilience perceptions following the 2013 central Illinois tornadoes". International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 17: 154–160. doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.04.006. ISSN 2212-4209. Retrieved 1 November 2025.
Rozdilsky, Jack L.; Swope, Nick (March 2015). "A Town, A Tornado, and a Team" (PDF). Natural Hazards Observer. 39 (4). University of Colorado Boulder: 18–21. ISSN 0737-5425. Retrieved 1 November 2025.
Criterion 2.c. is not met as citations are not consistently formatted. For example, ref #49 is a dead link; ref #59 is also a dead link... In summary, you should check that every link is working, and if not, add an archived version of it. Some citations use the website's name, others use the website's URL: ref #43 uses "CIProud.com" instead of "WMBD-TV"...
The section "Washington, Illinois, supercell" could certainly be shortened as there is already an article on the outbreak itself (Tornado outbreak of November 17, 2013), and also because it strays a bit off the main topic of the Washington tornado (like I don't think this specific article needs a ~237 word parahraph on the Coal City tornado). And also perhaps, the section should be moved towards the end of the tornado summary as it talks about the subsequent events involving the supercell. The section could really benefit from "Wikipedia:Summary style" per criterion 4..
I don't see the relevance of including the "Possible EF5 intensity" section without more context. I know the 2025 study only provides a one-line mention of the Washington tornado, but the Wikipedia article never really tells us why this tornado merits the status as an "EF5 candidate", and without more explanation and context, its inclusion in this article feels out of place. 
"Weaker construction" ≠ "poorly built".
"The tornado rapidly intensified to low-end EF4 strength as it entered the city of Washington, leveling and partially sweeping away a couple of homes along English Oak Street in the Woodridge Trace subdivision at 170 mph (270 km/h)." – This isn't verified in the cited source. In general, a complete check of all references should be done to verify that what you're stating in the article is verified in the reference that you're citing. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)