Talk:2021 Bowling Green tornadoes

2021 Bowling Green tornadoes has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 17, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance). This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject. United States: Kentucky Low‑importance United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky (assessed as Mid-importance). Death Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:2021 Bowling Green tornadoes/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Could the lead paragraph be modified so it directly states the categories of the tornadoes, instead of just indirectly referring to their damage? A link to Enhanced Fujita scale would also be good here. Done As an intense upper-level trough progressed across the High Plains, with robust instability and moisture return across the Mississippi Valley, the SPC expanded the enhanced risk and introduced a moderate risk area from northeastern Arkansas into southern Illinois on the morning of December 10. This is a very long sentence, perhaps it can be broken up? Done which planned to install additional storm shelters in Bowling Green in the event of another tornado This makes it sound like the shelters will be installed if another tornado eventuates. Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This isn't a requirement, but more wikilinks could be added to relevant terms, particularly meterological terms like mesocyclone and supercell. Since this isn't a requirement of the GA criteria, I'll leave it up to you if you want to add them.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	See discussion below. Resolved Source spot check completed, everything looks ok. Majority of sources are highly reliable government publications.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio detected.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are public domain save for one, which is tagged as free use and valid for inclusion.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant and captioned well.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues fixed and article ready to be listed.

Discussion

Starting review. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5:Review completed. Great work with this article! Just one thing to clear up. In the Tornado summaries section, this website is used extensively to cite the damage caused. When I open the link it appears to be just a mapping tool for storm damage. Could you please explain what this source is and where the info comes from? I'd just like to be clearer on what this source says since it is used for the majority of claims in the article. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'm currently on mobile and will probably work on an essay about that; you'd be surprised how much that question is asked. Once I have access to a computer I'll explain it. ^EF⁵ 11:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! It seems super interesting and I've really been enjoying exploring tornado and extreme weather articles recently, absolutely fascinating stuff, so I would enjoy an explanation for my personal knowledge as much as I would to get this article over the GA line :) SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28: I've finished the essay, which can be found at WP:USEDAT. Funny enough, somebody asked me the exact same question only a few minutes after you did. For this specific event, set the dates to "12/9/2021" and "12/11/2021" and enter "Bowling Green, Kentucky" into the address box on the top-left; a large orange damage line will appear. That is the tornado on DAT. Unrelated, but I also have a guide to writing about tornadoes that you can utilize whenever you want. Note that another EF3 tornado appears to the west of Bowling Green (near Hadley, Kentucky); that is not the same tornado. ^EF⁵ 14:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Thanks for the essay, I'll check it and your other guide out when I get the chance. I just tried to have a look at the damage tracker, but I can't seem to get it to work? I've set the dates as 9 December 2021 and 11 December 2021 and zoomed in on Bowling Green, KY, but nothing appears. Am I missing something silly?

See other notes in above table regarding GA nom when you get the chance. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just tried this on my iPhone instead of laptop and it seems to work fine there so obviously some kind of device issue I’m having, will look into it. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So when I set the dates on my laptop to be from 9 December-12 December (not 11), it appears and works fine. Not sure why, but perhaps something to do with my device-specific timezone and date display settings. I noticed in your essay the screenshot of the tool has MM/DD/YYY format, yet when I enter it on my side through the calendar popup it appears as DD/MM/YYYY (I'm in Australia).

Slightly finicky but I'm happy with this, I'll update it in the table above as a pass for this criterion. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowyRiver28: everything else addressed. ^EF⁵ 13:07, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.