# Talk:Jarrell tornado

I am going to be guiding MemeGod27 through the process of creating a solid article. For ease of discussion, I am using the good article criteria layout, however this is not a formal GAN or anything like that. Just making that note for future editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

1a
Prose templated from the 2023 Pasadena-Deer Park GA (also WeatherWriter that is an amazing article by the way). All good here!  :D   MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
1b
Pretty good here, we have a short description (one of the few things I'm experienced in) that is formatted correctly, correctly-used and informative infobox, the "main article" or "see also" templates are used correctly as well. Headers and sub-headers are also worded properly, and paragraphs are properly sectioned out!  :)   MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2a
Good citation-wise, citations still need to be checked for verifability. 2a is a-good. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2b
2c
So this point is about no WP:OR, otherwise known as no original research. I will start doing some verifiability checks, which basically mean checking the source to see if what it is cited for is, in fact, in the source. I added a few failed verification templates in the meteorological synopsis section. In theory, you should be able to hover (not click) over the "failed verification" link, and it should show you the note I left about it. If it doesn't show the note when you hover over it, let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, for whatever failed verification thing pops up, I can fix it. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 05:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
2d
After running EarWig (check can be found | here), there were only 2 publications that have over a 10% similarity to the main draft, and none go over 20%. Looking good copyvio-wise, I am going to attempt to whittle similarities down to under 10%, and we should be fine from there. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Disregard above statement, the 19% similarity comes from the repeated use of "May 27, 1997" and "Double Creek Estates". All good copy-vio wise! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
3a
Everything that could possibly be addressed about this demon of a tornado has been addressed, including the "Dead Man Walking photograph" and "Fatalities" sections. I'll double check to see what needs added, but as of right now, in my eyes, it looks fine section-wise! Edit: Page is now 32,000+ bytes, bigger than the article for the 2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado. Length-wise, we are 1000% good. :D  MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 05:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
3b
The article is pretty detailed, but it follows the typical format for tornado articles, and doesn't give things that would make the article harder to read or make people look up definitions. Pretty good here :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
4
I honestly don't know how a tornado article wouldn't be neutral, but yeah. Article meets NPOV. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 04:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah, weather articles almost always just automatically pass this point. An example of a weather-article where this point would actually need to be carefully looked at is like Hurricane Katrina disaster relief or 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Political response. Basically once politics are involved or mentioned in the article (or general controversies like on 2011 Smithville tornado#Internet fiction), this point becomes important. For a more or less science/history article, it doesn't really apply. At the end, we can double check this point to make sure the article passes it. Currently, that point would only possibly apply to the "Reactions" section in the article, as that starts becoming less-science/history and more reaction-history, which has a chance to lead to NPOV things. But, like I said, almost every weather article just passes it without any issues. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Nice! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 05:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
5
This happened in 1997, and there is no edit warring or current change that could happen here. 5 has been fulfilled. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 04:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
6a
First off here, over on the Commons, a URL-source needs to be added for File:1997 Jarrell forming.png & File:1997 Jarrell tornado roping.png. Basically, in the "Source" section of each image, the URL itself just needs to be dropped, rather than "National Weather Service". An example of what I mean can be seen on File:Jarrell tornado 1997.jpg. The other images in the article already have solid free-use licenses and can be easily verified with such. So, honestly step 1 (since it involves the Commons and copyright stuff) would be to add the exact source for those two images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:02, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I have both of the sources, they were on the NWS website and published by the NWS. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
You can link the URL here and I could fix the images over on the Commons, or you could. For direct changes: For both image "Source" sections, change "National Weather Service" ---> URL (just copy/paste it). That is the only change that needs to happen. The "Author" section can stay "NWS", but the website URL needs to be on there instead of just "National Weather Service". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Let me do that real quick :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Sweet! So as of this message at least, all eight images in the article are free-to-use and all have acceptable copyright licenses. If this was a formal good article nomination (GAN), this point would pass. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
6b
All images make sense for the article at the time of this message. If this was a formal good article nomination (GAN), this point would pass. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay. I'll check that off, and I do have more PD damage photos, which I'll upload later. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Whoops, scratch that. I forgot to double check what 6b was, which is suitable captions. Are the images relevant, yes, but that is only part of 6b. Let me do a caption check. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
For File:1997 Jarrell tornado peak strength.jpg, the caption reads "The 1997 Jarrell F5, as it was at peak strength", however the source for does not state the photograph was taken at peak intensity. As such either (1) a source saying the photograph is the tornado at peak intensity needs to be added in the caption or (2) the caption needs to be rewritten to remove the original research (WP:OR).
Same thing for File:1997 Jarrell forming.png & File:1997 Jarrell tornado roping.png, which has the current captions of "The tornado as it was forming" & "The tornado as it was roping out outside of Jarrell". The source with the images does not directly state the tornado was forming/roping out, so a source needs to be added or the caption needs to be rewritten.
The other sources have solid captions that are verifiable and good. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I'll just rewrite the captions. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we are now good image-wise, as every major part of the article has a companion image MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
MemeGod27: We can add notes about each point (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for what each point states) and add comments under it similar to a talk page discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter The article is looking really good as of right now, the only thing that needs worked on is the citations. :)  MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Article has been assessed as B-class, I'll try to work it to GA :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

In the section "Tracking into Jarrell", the 5th sentence is cutoff: "The tornado tore off asphalt as it crossed County Roads 308, 305, and 307; the thickness of the asphalt pavement was roughly.". Hopefully someone knows the thickness and can complete the sentence. Jamezkoe (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I've got that. The original first edits of the draft were a copy-paste from the outbreak article, but I refined and worded apparently (almost) everything. I'll get to it as soon as possible! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Reworded* MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Issue has been fixed. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be entirely composed of sentences taken directly from previous parts of the articles, word for word. This whole article needs a clean up Jamezkoe (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I looked over it, and can I get an example of where it is copied word for word besides "all 27 fatalities occurred at the Double Creek Estates"? Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
1. The following passage exists word for word in Both the "Damage to Jarrell" and "Fatalities" sections: "The high intensity of the Jarrell tornado left those in its path with little recourse; most homes in Double Creek Estates were built on cement slab foundations and few had a basement or any form of storm shelter; nineteen people sought refuge in a single storm cellar." 2. In the previously mentioned "Damage to Jerrell", it states "Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were also destroyed. In total, the tornado dealt $10–20 million in damage to the neighborhood. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". In the fatalities section it says Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were destroyed. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". Jamezkoe (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Btw, I shouldn't have titled it as I did.  I think a section dedicated to the victims is wholly deserved, but the state that it's currently in is simply disrespectful. Jamezkoe (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I'll go ahead and change the content/reword it. The fatalities section is 100% needed, as this tornado very unfortunately caused some extremely gruesome and disturbing wounds to people. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb (alt):, you rececently removed part of the page + a source under the rational of "self promotion / self published". The author, Marlene  Bradford, is a PhD'ed meteorologist from Texas A&M University with a doctorial on tornado forecasting. I think this qualifies as a subject-expert. Btw, the author is academically published in the field of meteorology as well ([1]), with a publication in the American Meteorological Society. Could you explain further on your rational for removing it and/or could you re-add the information? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The article claimed "Multiple books have been written and published on the subject of the tornado, the most notable being Marlene Bradford's "Incredible Destruction in Central Texas: The Jarrell Tornado"." This is an extraordinary claim supported by no source whatsoever. This is a self-published book, putting it at the bottom of notability of any books dealing with this tornado. Wikipedia does not exist to promote the works of self published authors, no matter how 'qualified' they are. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep, per Weather Event Writer's rationale. Just because it's flagged by a bot doesn't make it a self-promo. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Don't start an edit war until this discussion is complete. That's not how it is done here. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The "Notable" part has been fixed, everything is good now. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
It hasn't. There's no sources save the self-published book itself. This is spam at worse, and WP:UNDUE at best.Headbomb (alt) (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure, it's "spam". I'm done with that part, I'll add something else that does have a reliable source. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Since there is an active copyright discussion on the "Dead Man Walking" photo, we need a new image for the infobox. Any thoughts? While the tornado was a wedge in its' F5 phase, it also had extremely high windspeeds even as a rope. Honestly anything would represent it. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, I have found one that fits. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This is more of a continuation of the previous message, but I found about 30 other photos relating to the tornado that could fit in the info box:
- 1. This one of the tornado at F4+ intensityA
-2. The tornado as it was strengtheningFile:Jarrell tornado initial stages.jpg
-3. The tornado at peak intensityFile:Jarrell tornado wedge phase upscaled.jpg
For other images, see Category:1997 Jarrell tornado on commons.
WxTrinity (talk to me!) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

There is only a single semi-reliable source for 300mph wind speeds, and despite four different citations, neither are truly reliable here. Mississippi-based meteorologist Eric Graves, on a Facebook post, stated "Winds were estimated to be over 300 mph at times", which was followed up by the mysanantonio article. Beyond this is the Plainview Herald article, which states the tornado had "winds up to 318 mph", and the SF Gate article, which I believe is the true original article, which stated victims had "their skin burned by the deadly friction of 300 mph winds."
All 4 of these sources appear to be based on the Fujita scale's F5 rating, which ranged from 261-318mph, which was likely picked up by the media who sensationalized the articles by using the high ends of that as those of the tornado itself (the tornado was never confirmed to have winds over 300 miles per hour). I believe claim was fabricated by SF Gate and Plainview Herald independently, then passed onto Eric Graves, who passed it onto mysanantonio.
Jarrell has never officially been acknowledged as containing wind speeds over 300mph by the National Weather Service or European Severe Storms Laboratory. It also has never been officially rated on the TORRO scale, regardless of what some uncited and soon-to-be-reverted edits would have you believe. Ideally a good source would come from an expert, in which case Thomas P. Grazulis is probably the one to consult here, but until a reliable source can be found, the article should not state the tornado contained a wind speed of over 300 miles per hour. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this statement, but mentally it is still hard to accept because how violent and horrifying this tornado was. Алексеев Н. (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
The highest reliable wind speed we have is >261 mph. I have no idea why people keep adding the 300. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Because its very difficult to accept the lack of absolutely reliable sources that can prove 480+ km/h windspeeds. I provided these 4 links, but you discover their not-complete reliability. So, if there's no any reliable sources, i accept your official position.         Алексеев Н. (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Tornado Archive does not show full damage path... Beluga732 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey there @Tails Wx, Sir MemeGod here! I'm finally ready to start working the article to GA status (I feel bad that I haven't started earlier!) The main issues (many of which were emphasized in the above GAN) were that the article was or had:

Unreliability of sources - Many of the sources that we do have are still unreliable
Many sentences just don't have a source - I believe we should work to add sources for unsourced claims, and then double-check once we're done to make sure that they are covered.
Too many images (I came up with this one) - I uploaded way too many damage photos to Commons, so we need to pick and choose to summarize which images work best for the summary and articles as a whole.
Consolidation/Rewriting of paragraphs - This was stated in above sentence, particularly with the "Case Studies" portion.
Infobox image I've spent so much time deciding which photo of the tornado is best for the infobox. We've gotta figure this out (lol)!
I've mainly set this section up so that we can discuss the improvements that we can make, among other things. Let's get this (pretty heavy) ball rolling! :D Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I literally had all these points in mind before this discussion started, ironically. I'll be happy to help with a new device that's not my phone! ~ Tails Wx 02:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Mobile editing is... definitely something. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I did go that way for two months, yes; I did try to push on with other projects while mobile editing, that's the thing! ~ Tails Wx 02:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I feel like visual editing on mobile is impossible! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
It sorta is. Anyway, let's get workin'! ~ Tails Wx 02:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'm going to begin with trimming down the quotes in the case studies section! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Fatalities section - I noticed that you had questioned why the "Fatalities" section was here, and I added it because this tornado was absolutely notorious for the loss of human life and cattle it caused. It's one of the few tornadoes that literally "ground people up" in it's 261 mph+ winds, and deserves an explanation for the injuries it caused. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 14:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
I get that, but I do feel like it could be mentioned more broadly in the tornado's summary. I just don't think it's deserving a section, but it's my opinion, and could differ from yours. ~ Tails Wx 02:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Yea, opinions differ from person to person. We can try to incorporate it into the summary, if that helps at all, I mean I'm not opposed to it. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Tails Wx: How does the article look now? Here's what I've done:

Cleared out all contested or copyvio images, since they will almost 100% be deleted, I also added an NFF in the infobox.
Fixed the placement of images per MOS:SANDWICH.
Merged a few sections into subsections, like "See also" and "External links".
Added "Further reading" section, with two books from experts.
Copy edits, including adding "(1997 USD)" after monetary estimates.
Removed all citations from the lede and relocated them somewhere else.
Addressed and fixed all  or  tags.
Thanks! :)  SirMemeGod  14:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sir MemeGod, I still don't think it's ready for GA-nominating just yet, sadly. I still think the lead could be a little more organized and expanded, and we probably have to deal with removing the unreliable Wordpress source that still remains. Also, could we find a better source than the KVUE YouTube video, just in case if that's rendered unreliable despite it being published from a news channel?
I think several sections and sub-sections in the article could be further improved or expanded as well, particularly the "Aftermath", "Fatalities", and "Reactions" (there might be more out there that isn't noted already) ones. If you'd like me to go a little more in-depth on why is this, I'll be happy to explain but I had to rush to reply quickly (just to give you an idea on how the article looks in general) for school-related reasons – do expect a lengthy amount of time for me to respond if so, though. But I'll say this at the moment: "Between May 29 and June 1, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research carried out aerial and ground surveys of the tornadic damage in Texas in coordination with the Texas Wing Civil Air Patrol" in "Reactions" section is unreferenced and the entire section could benefit from copyediting; possibly the same thing for "Aftermath" in terms of copyediting; and we definitely should discuss more on whether the "Fatalities" section should be included or not. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Sir MemeGod: I think the article is almost GA-ready now. It still needs some copyediting and a bit of formatting for the references present in the article, and the lead needs to be significantly expanded. But that'll be probably be taken care of in no time, so just updating ya on the progress of this article to GA–almost there! ~ Tails Wx 04:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work on it more today, I've just had so many other things going on (like that megalist). I can help expand the lede, if t does seem to be missing info. :) SirMemeGod  12:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Sir MemeGod: I believe it's ready now, and before I nominate it for GA, do you have any other issues or concerns in the article that you think that might need to be addressed? ~ Tails Wx 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
None that I have found. If you don't mind it, do you want to co-nominate since we've both worked on it? SMG chat 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep! How would that process work, though? Would it be one of us just nominating it or...? ~ Tails Wx 18:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I think someone just nominates it and says "co-nomination with _____". Currently in a Geometry class, so I can't start one, feel free to go ahead. :) SMG chat 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've taken note of the title image being potentially a reversed and darkened version of a photo from Scott Beckwith's album on the Jarrell tornado. Observe the bottom right pic in this section of the album.
https://x.com/ForensicsJack/status/1655520713242038274?t=F0URWwxiMm52mWwu-OctzA&s=19
Is there a policy against edited images being used for real life events? 2600:1004:B0BF:D073:0:8:AEC2:E01 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The closest guideline I could find was Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images which says the file page should always list editing done and that you may need to mention something in the caption. Commander Keane (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Within the introduction there is this sentence:
"The tornado killed 27 residents of the town, many in a single subdivision, and inflicted a total of     (1997 USD) in damages in its 13-minute, 5.1 miles (8.2 km) track. "
This paragraph is missing an actual dollar amount.  H.Salamander (talk) 18:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for bringing it up. :) EF5 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm back for real this time after a very long break (See 2025 talk page). I noticed this article has changed a lot since the last time I saw it. It's mostly all good, but I noticed two things that I have some concerns with:
1.) It no longer fully and accurately describes the full extent of the unbelievable destruction at Double Creek, namely the fact that in the hardest hit area, homes were wiped out of existence there was virtually no debris left, and what was left was finely granulated and dispersed over a wide area. This was THE thing that made this event so remarkable and unique damage wise, and it is very well documented that this happened. The near total lack of recoverable debris was the "hallmark signature" of Jarrell, and I can easily source this and re-add it.
2.) The descriptions of the remarkable vehicle damage is no longer in the damage path summary. It is in a separate section. I feel that the damage descriptions should be consolidated into one section for easier reading, and to paint a more clear picture of what made this event one-of-a-kind. 
In a nutshell, I just don't feel this article quite paints an accurate picture of just how insane Jarrell was from a damage perspective following recent edits. As long as I can source it all, are you guys ok with me adding some more detail about what happened at Double Creek? I just want to paint a clear and vivid picture of the damage, and have it documented accurately and objectively. Let me know what you think.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Given the lack of replies, I assume nobody has a problem with this. I am going to go ahead and make the needed changes later today.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12