Talk:2011 Super Outbreak

❧

Wikipedia

Former good article2011 Super Outbreak was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2013Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 20, 2015Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
April 6, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on April 28, 2011.
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Reassessment

2011 Super Outbreak

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 • Most recent review
Result: Delisting per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

This article has suffered over the last decade plus from WP:HALFLIFE and a lack of updates. Never fully fleshed out to begin with, the article's aftermath section was never properly expanded even after a notice was put up about it. Over the years there have been many journal articles published about the event, of which only one has been incorporated. There is an immense amount of work required to get this article up to par. At present there is no need for a thorough review of the article until published journals (primarily from the AMS) are incorporated and the aftermath section is written. If that is done I am open to continuing with a further review to ensure the article is up to GA standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a really good idea. There are some other weather articles that could use that as well. ChessEric 00:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
ChessEric, if you know of any off the top of your head, please feel free to nominate them at GAR. There's a script at the top of the GAR page which makes the whole process much easier. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for letting me know. ChessEric 01:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm a little confused on how to do it though. Could you show me? ChessEric 01:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
For example, I think the February 2009 North American storm complex article needs a GAR. How do I request one? ChessEric 01:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
If you install the User:SD0001/GAR-helper script, there should be an option for "GAR" in the menu where you normally find the "Move" button, ChessEric. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Why didn’t you just do it instead of wasting time here lol. United States Man (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@United States Man: I'm focused on other articles and don't want to spend the time researching and writing this one. I'm happy to guide and help others who are able to put forth the effort on this one though. I've brought it up multiple times over the years and it's just time for this process to begin. If an article isn't up to standards it shouldn't be displayed as such. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Cyclonebiskit, do you mind providing links to the journal articles you refer to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Of course, links are below. These are the main journals that are easy to find through the American Meteorological Society. There are many other journal articles that are not primarily focused on the outbreak but have information pertaining to it. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:39, 2 April 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.

Table

Is there really a need for a table here anymore? List of tornadoes in the 2011 Super Outbreak has a far more detailed table for viewers to see, and arguably if we’re cutting down on the massive prose in this article then removing the table is a good compromise. Additionally, these tables only really seem to be useful in long sequences over many days from multiple systems, not 2-3 outbreaks from a single system (which this outbreak was the product of. @United States Man:, however reverted my edits both times after explaining my reasoning, the latter of which under the guise of “it’s fine as it is”, which I respectively disagree with. Naturally, this comes here. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I have zero clue why we're fighting about this. The table can be put on both pages. The change in prose size is insignificant. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree. Very little prose is being saved and detail is being unnecessarily sacrificed. United States Man (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing an issue with the table here considering the sheer number of tornadoes that occurred, especially on April 27. ChessEric 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

General Restructuring

I think this article spends way too much text summarizing what is already stated in other individual articles instead of focusing on the meteorological setup and event. Some more time could be spent on the aftermath, or media coverage of the event, or the effects on future outbreaks. Do others feel the same? NomzEditingWikis (talk) 08:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Dwelling on individual tornadoes too much when they've already been spun off into their own articles is unnecessary and harmful inasmuch as increasing article length can be. Departure– (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, the Vilonia EF2, Fackler EF4, Trenton EF4 and Eoline EF3 at the minimum need sub-articles. I'd do it, but there will 100% be an edit war over it, as we saw in December. EF5 19:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Working on the Eoline EF3 atm. EF5 19:24, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

New Harmony and Great Smokey Mountains EF4 Tornadoes

Are these two tornadoes significant enough to be highlighted in the article? I know there is unfortunately not a lot of information, nor photographs (I have seen a few, however, I have no source) from these two tornadoes. The New Harmony tornado killed 4 and caused very violent structural and vehicle damage, and the GSM tornado levelled 14 miles of forest and toppled a TVA transmission tower. Ihatemygrave (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Split proposed

CrazyC83 has proposed the section 2011 Super Outbreak#Meteorological synopsis be split out into a new article titled Meteorological history of the 2011 Super Outbreak. Please comment below with your support or opposition. Stefen 𝕋ower Huddle • Handiwerk 22:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, don’t really see the need as there haven’t been any precedent for this type of split. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support per nom (this entire article, even with the 7+ individual splits that has been done, is still way too long to be a GA, which I want to get done sometime this year). Precedent doesn't matter. EF5 02:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support Xtools shows article length at ~12,700 words, so it definitely could be divided further per WP:SIZERULE. I don't think we should lean too much on precedent since this was very much not a typical outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2026 (UTC)
  • Support pushing 13k words and has poor readability + per WP:SIZERULE. HurricaneZetaC 03:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)