Talk:2022 Andover tornado
![]() | 2022 Andover tornado is currently an Earth sciences good article nominee. Nominated by EF5 at 14:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: 2022 EF3 tornado in Kansas, US |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from 2022 Andover tornado appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 December 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
( )
- ... that despite damaging over 1,000 buildings, the 2022 Andover tornado (pictured) only injured three people?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Wright (energy executive)
- Comment: Since I know this'll be brought up, tornado intensity does not equate to notability. This is a rare case of an EF3 tornado meeting our myriad of notability guidelines.
EF5 20:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC).
Hi @EF5:, review follows: article created 19 November and exceeds minimum length; article is well enough written and generally cited throughout, I've tagged a few instances where it is not; I am no tornado expert but the sources used look to be reliable for the subject; I noted that the "Meteorological synopsis" section is copy pasted from the source, but that this is from the federal NOAA so is PD; hook fact is interesting, stated in the article and checks out to sources; a QPQ has been carried out; image is OK but I wonder if the video could appear instead; they tend to do well at DYK. If you can address the citations needed I think this should be good to go - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was actually just about to upload that video, but it appears that someone got to it first. Yes, that video would be much better. I’ll get to the citations in a bit. EF5 13:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: All CNs have been addressed. The stuff in the lede is cited in the main prose, same goes with infobox content. EF5 13:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
- I was actually just about to upload that video, but it appears that someone got to it first. Yes, that video would be much better. I’ll get to the citations in a bit. EF5 13:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @EF5:. Looks good to go - Dumelow (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)