Talk:Great Storm of 1975

Undue emphasis on tornados?

In human terms, the blizzard portion of this storm caused 5 times as many deaths as all the tornados. But you would hardly realize that from this article, which devotes way more space to tornados, only mentioning the blizzard at the end. Seems an odd emphasis to me. T bonham (talk) 03:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Items I see preventing this article from getting to GA

• References - The format is inconsistent. You need to maintain a similar format throughout your references. If you start listing authors first in the reference, you should continue in that fashion through the article.
• Two infoboxes? - This is something new to me for a meteorological article. It is creating chaos with your image placement. I'd suggest, if no one else has issue with two infoboxes, that you place the infobox for the severe weather event first (since it was earlier in the life cyclone anyhow)...and move the blizzard box a bit farther down the article. That should help you place your other images in a less haphazard manner. If others do have issue with two boxes, which they may, then pick the box that represents the greatest source of damage and "mayhem" from this cyclone. Thegreatdr 18:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For the references, I don't think I did anything different, I just fillled in the information that I had as it was laid out in the different templates. Some of the reference sources did not contain authors names though, so that's why some are not showing up at the beginning. Does that make sense? With the infoboxes... When I started this article I'd asked if both of these events should be in one article, or if I should split them out, and the reply I got was just one article. Because this is a rare occasion where there was a large blizzard and a large tornado outbreak from the same system, I think that both infoboxes are justified (unless there is another type of infobox that would support both events). I wasn't sure if the should both be algined to the top or not, but that's how I initially put it in. Since you're okay with moving one down the page a bit I made that adjustment and I do think it looks much better. Thanks for the suggestion. Gopher backer 19:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the references. Per your suggestion I moved the publisher to the front on all of them. Gopher backer 15:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As for a lack of author, something I do to maintain similar structure is to credit the organization as the author for that reference. I'm going to ask about multiple infoboxes on the main project page, just to get more opinions. Blizzards and tornado outbreaks with the same cyclone aren't that uncommon...and it is bound to come up again. Thegreatdr 19:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there are only two errors left in the reference section. References 2 and 11 don't match the format of the others. Thegreatdr 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that I can improve those any further. #2 is a {cite video}, #11 is a {cite book}, and the rest are {cite web}. Each of those templates uses different information, so they're going to display differently. Wikipedia:Citation_templates In each of the references, the author or publisher is listed first, followed by the referenced material. What specfiically do you think needs to be fixed yet? Gopher backer 16:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. A similar template needs to be used for all references. If you include dates of retrieval in one, you need them in all. If you hide the actual web address in one citation, it should be hidden in all of them. Someone else is bound to mention the mixed references as an obstacle, not just superficially, but codingwise. It's been coming up in FA for surface weather analysis, as well as GA for tropical cyclone rainfall climatology and tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting, and my reference related problem in FA was accidentally linking some retrieval dates and not others. FA is more strict, but it has come up in GA before. Thegreatdr 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've never heard of that being a problem before. Minnesota is going to be on the front page starting tonight, I chipped in a little with that one and that has a lot of mixed refs in it. I'll take a look at the articles you mentioned and see what they have to say. Gopher backer 16:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are issues with how the various cite templates display items that should be taken up on the template talk page, not here. The correct templates are used for the correct type of media. -Ravedave 03:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We have another issue. The tornado numbers for all the F categories neither match the total from that box, nor the infobox. That definitely needs to be fixed. Thegreatdr 21:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the tornado box. There was 1 error in the box (I think an F2 was missing), and I recounted the tornadoes and it looks like one F1 was missed so I added that back in as well. Gopher backer 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple places in the article where more encyclopedaic wording is needed. One is in the lead. As an example, the term "pounded" should be replaced with a more relevent, less dramatic, term that you'd imagine reading in an academic text or an encyclopedia. The other problem in the lead is that it mentions this storm was a near record blizzard for the Midwest, but it is not mentioned within the body of the article. Make these two changes, and I'll pass the article. I'm placing the article on hold (which I should have done during the first set of comments) until the two changes are made. The changes need to be made by the 27th, or I'll fail it. The remaining small problems with the references can wait until FA. Thegreatdr 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! I made one other edit to help the wording along. Thegreatdr 20:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input along the way! Gopher backer 20:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox

See what you think of the combined infobox for tornadoes and winter storms. It's my first attempt...it likely needs improvement. Thegreatdr 21:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks good. The only suggestion I'd have would maybe be to try and put a

---

or something to that effect in the middle of the box to seperate the tornado information from the blizzard part. Also, about the tornado count box, someone else put that information in so I'll go back and try to fix it. Gopher backer 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Right now I have the various pieces of information concerning tornadoes and snowfall intermingled. If you'd like to redesign the infobox, go for it. I'm new to their creation as well. Be bold! Thegreatdr 22:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have overdone it a bit, but feel free to pull one or two or three of the [hr]'s out. User:Gopher backer/sandbox2 Gopher backer 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

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 criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Storm of 1975. 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/20090509142712/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwEvent~Storms to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.norman.noaa.gov/publicaffairs/releases/noaa99r211.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great Storm of 1975. 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/20061005231730/http://www.nationalgeographic.com/forcesofnature/interactive/index.html?section=t to http://www.nationalgeographic.com/forcesofnature/interactive/index.html?section=t
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928100731/http://www.brainerddispatch.com/history/pages/1024/1024_Blizzard_01111975.jpg to http://www.brainerddispatch.com/history/pages/1024/1024_Blizzard_01111975.jpg

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Storm of 1975. 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/20070112171839/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lzk/html/tor012199.htm to http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lzk/html/tor012199.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Great Storm of 1975

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Per the below discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok so, while the article is cited, I think it fails the broadness category. There are multiple tornadoes in the confirmed tornadoes section that don't contain anything about the tornado. And it's the majority of tornadoes in that section. This is weird to me, especially about an article of a storm that killed 58 total and took place in 1975. I can understand a lack of information in maybe 1918. But 1975? There has to be more information you can use to talk about the storm. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Onegreatjoke, what do you expect to find about these tornadoes? From my understanding, they occurred way out in the countryside, and the only damage for most of them would be to fields (and maybe some unlucky cows or sheep). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though they were on the countryside there's possibly still more to talk about. Maybe you could find some newspaper sources on a newspaper archive website or something. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely many newspapers would talk about tornadoes which didn't cause incidents, when there was an abundance of other tornadoes which did. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Though. looking here https://www.newspapers.com/search/?query=Great%20Storm%20of%201975&p_country=us&dr_year=1975-1975 on newpapers.com shows over 200 thousand entries that's possibly for the great storm of 1975. Though I don't have a subscription so I can't check these for anything. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well it's over 100 thousand on there. mine said 200000 Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I've had a look through around half a dozen reports on ProQuest; all of them focus solely on the McComb tornado. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if you can't find anything we'll see if Femke can. If they can't then just close this a keep due to a misjudgment of mine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, no interest in this topic. Gotta save electricity. If no specific faults can be identified, it should be closed a keep. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.