# Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006

We're streaming WSMV on our site (11Alive.com), and they've pointed out yet another cell that is about to nail the city of Nashville yet again -- making the third major cell in the past three hours. --Mhking 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is their worst outbreak in eight years...there have been many more tornadoes than we have listed because the NWS office was shut down for a while there. When everything calms down, I will write a special section for the north Nashville area supercell. CrazyC83 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I knew this was going to happen, and the funny thing is I thought of another tornado outbreak after the one that happened on April 2 of this year. I'm looking at the radar and there has to be more then 50 tornados already by now. Could this outbreak cause a F5 which we have been all waiting for years? I saw that cell go by Nashville and i'm shocked, I wonder what reports will come out of that. I also checked the NWS and the area of Tornado watch's is insane. 216.110.254.167 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the Gallatin was an F3 based on damage pictures. But who knows, maybe an F5 later this evening somewhere? (Hopefully everyone is well-prepared though!!!) CrazyC83 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm watching that next watch box to the south, across northern MS/AL. There's enough convection in front of that to explode moreso below it. Watch the cells near Meridian and moving up toward Decatur/Huntsville. --Mhking 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen the SPC use a 60% probability for tornadoes within 25 miles of a point in a convective outlook. This is truly amazing... and tragic... I really want to be down there right now, but I'm sitting here in Michigan north of the warm sector. Maybe later this month... or May. A repeat of the Hudsonville-Standale Tornado of April 1956 is looooong overdue. —BazookaJoe 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If the outbreak redevelops tomorrow or holds into tomorrow morning (after dawn), the title will change to April 6-8 and tomorrow will be covered here. It is hard to say what will happen. CrazyC83 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it was holding together late last night and then started breaking up a bit. However, the line is still there and I see a hook shaped radar band!! It's a hook and you know what that means. There is also still some tornados ocurring right now but not nearly as much. I have a really sweet radar image that is a Supercell, where could it go? Can someone check that hook because it's a well formed one. 216.110.254.167 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Wikipedia or how to add to articles, so maybe someone could help me out. I was watching the storms blow up in TN on radar, and I saved one radar image of a rather impressive cell with a classic hook echo indicating a strong tornado. It just happened to be of the supercell that hit Sumner county. This image is probably 5-10min before the tornado struck Gallatin. Maybe someone can make use of it in the article showing how these cells look like on radar?
http://www.altarf.net/misc/TNradar040706.gif

I could check to see if I can add that but I have 2 radar images that are really cool and they are from WHNT-TV (Armor 19 radar) and they show tornado Super-cells. I tried to post them here but it didn't work. 216.110.254.167 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's some info from the National Weather Service on the confirmed tornadoes, now that most of the storm surveys are done. Kaldari 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the NWS has revised some of their reports. For example, there are now 3 confirmed F3 tornado touchdowns instead of 2. Kaldari 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The confirmed tornadoes list is a mess. The list was compiled using preliminary data and never revised, plus all the sources that are linked to are no longer there, so no one can verify any of the lists. The source links need to be updated to link to the proper pages (which are now probably archived). I do not believe this article should pass a Good Article nomination until these problems are addressed. Kaldari 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I went to the NCDC site and completely revised the Confirmed Tornadoes list using the data. They finalized it as two F3's. CrazyC83 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at this article from the Good Article review page, and while I'm not ready to do a full review yet, I have a couple comments:
The References section just has a lot of raw HTML links.  They should really be listed with the article title, date of publication, and so on.  Also, if a reference is used more than once in the article, it's more concise to put in a reference once like this: <ref name="linger">{{cite news|
url=http://www.gallatinnewsexaminer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061007/COUNTY08/610070334
|title=Storms' losses linger
|publisher=Gallatin News-Examiner
|date=2006-10-07
|accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref>.  Then, to use the same reference later on, just put in <ref name="linger"/>.  See Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes for some more information.  --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To increase the article's readability, I am going to split the list of confirmed tornadoes to a seperate article. -Runningonbrains 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the concern over cite format has been addressed, and the list was moved out, so it seems to me this is a GA. Be careful about using POV language though, its true that factually a tornado is going to be devastating, but words like that are used so much in the article it sort of seems like the article takes a turn for the dramatic side. But, I don't think that's POV enough for it not to be a GA. Homestarmy 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

Image:VolStateTornadoDamage.PNG-Needs a fair use rationale.
"However, that tornado was never confirmed; it was likely straight-line wind damage." The inline citation after this is malformed, please modify it to correctly show the reference for the information.
"In fact, the drill had to be rescheduled from around that time because of Katrina." This could use an inline citation.
Could not find a source for this so I removed it.  IMO unneeded trivia anyway.  Gopher backer (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There are no sources for the "Warren County Tornadoes" section, be sure to add some inline citations for the information present. The first paragraph in the aftermath section needs to be sourced as well.
This is now sourced. Gopher backer (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Throughout the article there are several choppy sentences that could use some cleanup; the article would benefit with a quick copyedit.
This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I took care of most of these points, with the exception of the references and citations.  Those could use a good work-over.  If there are any other choppy sentences still remaining could you point out and example?  Gopher backer (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Good job so far with addressing the issues. After a quick read through, it appears that many of the choppy sentences have been corrected and I didn't catch any more. I also agree with your removal of the sentence below, I was a bit apprehensive about it when I first read it. It was a good idea to move the images from the gallery up into the article itself. Once sources are added fro the remaining two points above, I'll be happy to pass the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try and find some more refs for this today.  Gopher backer (talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


### GA Sweeps Review: Pass
Superb job on addressing the above issues. I believe the article continues to meet the GA criteria and the article will keep its status. Continue to improve the article with any available information, ensuring that it is properly sourced and neutral. I have modified the article history of the article to reflect this review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. By the way, if you're interested, for your dedicated work you can add {{User:EyeSerene/boxes/GARescue|ARTICLE}} (replacing "ARTICLE" with "April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak") to your user page for helping the article maintain its GA status. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"The high number of overall tornadoes is exaggerated, however, by the fact that most were weak F0 or F1 tornadoes."  I removed this because it didn't make any sense to me.  To me this claims that the number of tornadoes listed for the outbreak is more than what actually happened.  Am I reading this right?  Gopher backer (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

 For interested parties, an infrared satellite image taken during an active part of the outbreak is now uploaded.  Evolauxia (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:April 14–16, 2011, tornado outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505093502/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928022425/http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8506 to http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8506
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20070702034433/http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/midstate-remembers-deadly-tornadoes-mos-later to http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/midstate-remembers-deadly-tornadoes-mos-later
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we add something on how at 2000z April 7th a 60% tornado risk was issued Redfishtwofish (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)