Talk:Greenfield tornado

Failed verification

Hey @Sumanuil: The tornado is still on the Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT). The DAT is an interactive map. It only automatically shows the latest 5-7 days. You have to change the date to when the Greenfield tornado occurred. I did just check and it is still there, so the reference doesn’t fail any verification. You can change the date at the top right of the website. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I did change the date. It gave me zilch. Maybe it's my computer? Is there a URL that would give those results automatically? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 06:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The Damage Assessment Toolkit

Sadly no direct link. I often set the date to a few days before and after a tornado. Sometimes the National Weather Service offices enter the date as the survey date or make an error and enter a date before the tornado when trying to correct for a previously entered survey date as the date for the tornado. I just took this screenshot, so maybe set your dates like I have. Also, make sure you are on the correct site. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's less than ideal. Maybe there should be a note alongside that reference? - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 18:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The dat doesnt save dates. Iy you link it to a certain date, it will not do that. 2600:1014:B100:6AC1:0:56:DA88:6701 (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Image

As the image in the infobox is up for deletion, I propose we add a frame from Reed Timmer's amazing drone footage of the tornado, a film that has itself been reported on by a few other sources. Alternatively, are any images from Greenfield itself and the tornado's peak intensity known to exist? From what I can tell, the drone footage was taken around 10-15 minutes before the tornado hit Greenfield, and I haven't seen any images of the tornado in the city itself. Does anyone know if the DOW team has an image of that? Departure– (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Realistically, peak intensity was near the windmill footage, but lack of proper DIs screwed it up. In addition, AFAIK there are no known photos of it in Greenfield. I might try and get the DOW team to release a radar shot to PD. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Email sent to Wurman, not expecting a reply though. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Good news and bad news.

Good news: I got pictures

Bad news: I'm a dumbass and there's already a DOW image in there. Not sure about peak intensity though. Also not PD. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Good news! Anticomp said that radar images are inherently PD per https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap900/ch900-visual-art.pdf 909.3(B)! I've uploaded the image. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Wildfireupdateman: @EF5: I found one! This is a more relevant and clearer image of the tornado in all of its multi-vortex and Cthulu-esque glory approaching Greenfield from the south. With you folks' approval, I'll replace the Reed Timmer image, but again as there's multiple people in this discussion I'll run it through discussion. It's from this AMS blog about the tornado and the DOW team's methodology.Departure– (talk) 16:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Nope. Per FAC, we're going to go with the Reed Timmer video unless some kind soul donates a free image of the storm. Still a good image, though. Departure– (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I've replaced the image with a screenshot from INCREDIBLE TORNADO VS WIND TURBINE DRONE FOOTAGE by Reed Timmer. The infobox photo was a copyright violation but hasn't been deleted on Commons yet. I don't know if my edit summaries were enough notification so I'm saying it here. Departure– (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Name

@Departure–: I recommend looking at the Greensburg tornado (a GA for one) for an example on how this format works when referred to frequently as such in studies and by townsfolk. Frankly that does not destroy the flow at all. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

See the centralized discussion at WP:WPWX that I've started as any consensus there will apply to more articles to avoid having a dispute like this in the future. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 Greenfield tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Departure– (talk · contribs) 15:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 13:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'll review this. I've addressed your FAC comments. E_F⁵ 13:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Prose

• During the afternoon hours should probably be changed to "in the afternoon hours".
• a violent, long-tracked and destructive high-end Way too many descriptors here. I'd suggest removing the "long-tracked" and/or "high-end".
• destroyed many structures and wind turbines are wind turbines WP:DUE here?
• with National Weather Service surveyors denoting reword to "where National Weather Service surveyors denoted".
• area expected to be strongly conducive to the development change to "area expected to be strongly conducive for the development".
• On May 21, a moderate risk for severe weather was issued over the states of Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois reword to "On May 21, meteorologists at the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issued a moderate risk for severe weather was issued over the states of Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois".

More to come, I'm still reading over. :) E_F⁵ 13:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• I'll change the lede. I think a drive-by editor changed that from "on the afternoon of".
• Same as above.
• The destruction of wind turbines, as well as videos of the tornado doing such, have been well-reported in reliable sources, so I do think it's due here.
• Will change shortly.
• One word, easy enough to change.
• Will change.

Departure– (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's more:

• The tornado would first touch down reword to "The tornado first touched down" per WP:WOULDCHUCK.
• Another EF2 tornado would form same as above.
• which would track same as above.
• while a weaker tornado would form same as above.
• The main tornado would narrow, This extreme figure likely would have, who would be coordinating local, in funds that would go towards all need to be reworded to exclude the "would" per above.
• I'm more picky about alt texts (I personally think 2-or-more sentences should be required) but since that is no rule I'm just recommending that the alt texts be expanded a bit. This doesn't need to be done.
• was issued at 1:10p.m. I'm assuming CDT?
• 2:57p.m. Central Daylight Time (UTC–5) Link UTC.

I checked the sources in the FAC, so I don't have concerns there. This is really all I've got. :) E_F⁵ 12:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: Mostly done. As far as I'm aware, WP:WOULDCHUCK is a preference for style rather than part of the MOS, and alt texts aren't necessary for GANs. As for everything else, can you get this approved ASAP so I can get it on DYK for April 1? Departure– (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, let me take one last look. — E_F⁵ 14:01, 24 March 2025 (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.

File:Aerial imagery of EF4 damage to homes in Greenfield, Iowa.jpg is FPC

File:Aerial imagery of EF4 damage to homes in Greenfield, Iowa.jpg has been nominated to become a Featured Picture on Wikipedia. You can view the nomination here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2024 Greenfield tornado damage via drone. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 22:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a tornado estimated to be one of the strongest on record helped out volunteers by planting maize crops in a green field?

• Source: This for the existence of crops and their description as "volunteer crops", this American Meteorology Society blog (deemed reliable enough in this context) for the first claim - “We’re trying to give a range, which puts this event at 309–318 mph.” The two strongest known tornadoes, El Reno in 2013 and Bridge Creek in 1999, both had DOW-measured wind speeds within that range. I can get a better source if necessary.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bargain Hunters
• Comment: Just passed GAN, this is a great hook for WP:DYKAPRIL. "Volunteers" refers to crops planted by natural processes instead of humans and I don't think a tornado can be reasonably referred to as a human, and there's some double speak going on equating Greenfield, Iowa, with a literal agricultural field.

Improved to Good Article status by Departure– (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

Departure– (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article reached Good Article status within 7 days of nomination. It has over 1,500 characters in prose, sourced, and neutral. Earwig shows an unlikely copyright violation of 24.8%. Hook is interesting and cited. Good to go! lullabying (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lullabying: What's your opinion on this as an April 1 hook? Should it be rephrased to get there? That's the primary reason why I did this GA. Departure– (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lullabying and Departure: just to comment narrowly on "Earwig shows an unlikely copyright violation of 24.8", you need to look at more than just the big number at the top of the report. Read through the report and look at the matches. In this case, most of them are proper nouns (Doppler on Wheels, National Weather Service) or direct quotes ("No matter what the wind speed ..."), so they're fine. You also need to look in the other direction, for places where text from the source has undergone trivial modifications to avoid detection by Earwig. This is called close paraphrasing. You also need to look at the sources beyond just the top one in the report. In this case this source has the direct copy of received new golf clubs from Callaway and TaylorMade, and he also received an invitation to play in the John Deere Classic mini Pro-Am. That should either be rewritten or at least quoted and attributed. RoySmith (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Fix @Departure–: RoySmith (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Done. Departure– (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it might need to be rephrased for the April hook. As someone who doesn't know much about this topic, maybe the part including "volunteers" might make it a little confusing and technical. Maybe ALT1: ... that a tornado estimated to be one of the strongest on record helped plant maize crops in a green field? lullabying (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Sorry for the late response. Volunteer is a very technical term but it contributes to the joke I'm trying to make on this hook. It works fine either way. Either way, it's linked as the correct terminology in the article, and will almost certainly get readers interested in the term of volunteering, if only to understand this hook. Departure– (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Comment As this is now unlikely to be an April 1 hook, it's ready to be promoted in a standard prep area, barring any issues with the hook. Departure– (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

---

2024 Greenfield tornado → Greenfield tornado – Per Greensburg tornado and Jarrell tornado. This one is a lot more discrete than a lot of other tornadoes as it only hit Greenfield - not Nodaway, Corning, or Villisca, as some initial reporting had it. As for other tornadoes in Greenfield, a quick search only brings up results for a tornado in Greenfield, Indiana - and another near the Iowan Greenfield. This tornado has become one of the most notorious tornadoes in recent memory - not quite on the level with Mayfield, El Reno, Moore, and Joplin, but as close as we've gotten in recent memory - so I don't see why this shouldn't be moved as of now. We'll get another reporting burst on May 21, on its first anniversary, to quell any doubt. Departure– (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per above, but should we also apply this to Joplin as well (given its nortority)? I will say I was considering opening an RM for this a while ago but I never went through with it as I wasn't quite sure if it had the same reasoning for it as Greensburg/Jarrell. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There was a tornado in Joplin in 1971, but I think there is just as much an argument there to move the 2011 one to Joplin tornado. Departure– (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I’ve gone ahead and opened a separate RM there following the guidelines and reasonings also explained here for Greenfield. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. Note that El Reno had an EF5 in 2011, Moore an F5 in 1999, and Mayfield an EF3 sometime in the 2010s (too lazy to go check the DAT, haha), so those won't fall under the COMMONNAME and PTOP rationales. — E_F⁵ 18:53, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Not arguing those; Mayfield's RM was unsuccessful, and as you say, both El Reno and Moore had more than one. Departure– (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support per nom. This tornado produced very extreme wind speeds and caused widespread severe damage. Look up just Greenfield tornado and you'll see this one. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 01:16, 23 April 2025 (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.

Peer review

Greenfield tornado

I've listed this article for peer review in the hopes that I can get this up to FA quality by May 21. On that date, I expect to see an uptick in coverage on the tornado (yes, I had this at FAC less than a year it happened - I'm lucky it was so well documented!). I've addressed much of the original scrutiny from the FAC, and want to get this as high of a quality as I can by the time people come back here for its first anniversary.

Thanks, Departure– (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• I removed the coordinates as inappropriate for a linear event. Other tornado articles tend not to have them, and I hope that those that do were short runs or point to a town that was destroyed or something. Abductive (reasoning) 15:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

  There are few things I can directly point to with coordinates without synthesis; there's really only the tornado's touchdown and lifting points, Greenfield itself, and various points of damage. It's not too important to the article itself so the coordinates are probably best left out. Departure– (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hy-Vee planting trees

The first round of anniversary coverage came this morning, and focuses on Hy-Vee, a regional supermarket chain, planting trees near Greenfield. Is this due in the article at all? KCCI, May 1. I don't know if it should be added as it's pretty late after the storm hits and they're just planting trees, but I want some more input on whether or not this is worth adding. Departure– (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Moriarty sources

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#June First sources at Greenfield tornado that concerns the use of Ethan Moriarty's YouTube sources on this article. Feel free to contribute there. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Tornado memorial plagiarizes this article

@MarioProtIV and Nicholas Krasznavolgyi: The physical memorial to the tornado in Greenfield plagiarizes this article's lede (i.e. no credit - text is free but needs to be attributed) via close paraphrasing - see KCCI article where the text can be seen briefly at the end. The article's lede is older than the monument so I know it's not the other way around (current wording arrived around February, monument came just this week). Departure– (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Departure–, that is amazing. Good job y'all, now your writing is permanently engraved in a monument. They even had the "known as the Greenfield tornado" part nailed, good grief. — ^EF⁵ 00:16, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

See also the thread I started at WP:Y#What to do when Wikipedia is plagiarized from. Departure– (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing for product issuance history

• Des Moines forecast discussion, 1:42 PM
• Tornado warning for Cass and Adams, 2:52 PM
• Tornado warning for Cass, Union, Adams, and Adair, 2:55 (Greenfield, Fontanelle, and Nodaway Park around 330 PM CDT)
• SVS for Cass, Union, Adams, and Adair 3:01 (PDS)
• Tornado warning for Madison, Union, Adams, Taylor, and Adair, 3:07
• SVS cancelling Cass and Adams 3:10
• SVS cancelling Taylor 3:12
• SVS cancelling Madison 3:21
• Tornado warning for Madison, Union, Adams, and Adair, 3:26 (Radar confirmed)
• PDS upgrade for Cass, Union, Adams, and Adair 3:27
• Tornado warning for Madison, Guthrie, Dallas, and Adair, 3:35 (PDS)

(Past here, all products are after the Greenfield tornado.)

• Tornado warning downgrade to confirmed, 3:43
• Tornado warning for Madison, Union, Ringgold, Clarke, and Warren, 3:55 (indicated, 75 miles per hour forward speed?)
• 2024 MD 875 - The severe weather threat for Tornado Watch 277 continues
• 2024 MD 878 - Long tracked supercells within a line extending north to south across central IA will continue to move eastward into an even more favorable tornadic environment.
• 2024 MD 879 - Intense to potentially violent tornado threat across northeast Iowa and into southwest Wisconsin over the next 2 hours

Departure– (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)