Talk:List of tornadoes in the 1974 Super Outbreak

Untitled

I've redirected the tornado list in an individual page as suggested. Feel free to add details about damage, time, path, location, deaths, photos, etc. It will be a certain time before I will complete the full list but already all F5 and most F4 are put.--JForget 18:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is the best source. This is something I would really like to get up to FA class one day, but the tornado pages have a lot of key components necessary. There are going to be numerous tornadoes with individual sections, and blanks to be filled in. Remember, tornadoes crossing state lines go in the state it first developed in. CrazyC83 00:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That was the reference in question that I used for the list. I have the list of all 148 tornadoes (why 149?), but still some details are added. And Wow! Did it ever took some time to do the list at least.

Now, I don't know exactly if some tornadoes (particularly Tennessee and Georgia) occured on the 4, but there's one at least from Tennessee that's on th e 4--JForget 04:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible sections on individual tornadoes

There will probably several to cover but I will go probably by net or news coverage.

The no-doubters : Xenia, Saylor Park, the 2 Tanner events, Guin, Louisville (especially news coverage), Bradenburg, Monticello

Possible candidates : Windsor, Depauw, Madison/Hanover, Elizabethtown, Frankfort, Huntsville and maybe a few others. That could be long! But, since the outbreak was such huge, and one of the deadliest ever, this may have the potentiel (after long work that's for sure and if we can find the vast majority of the info) to be a featured page.

Although Watch out,when I built up the article I've noticed that there are some differences between the NOAA tornado list and the Super Outbreak site that Iuse for the tornado list. Anyone who had the real info, can change it. I've thought that the NOAA site was more accurate then the individual page, and I've adjust some of the tornado scales for some tornadoes (although weaker tornadoes only).

--JForget 01:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Brandenburg area

This city in Kentucky has been moved to the Indiana section. Is there any particular rationale for this? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Tanner

I've noticed that the NWS rated both Tanner tornadoes as F-5's, although the possibly second F-5 is listed as Mt. Hope. Should we change the rating and put 7 under the F-5 category?--JForget 00:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd Tanner tornado was listed as F5 initially, and still is listed that way in many sources (many sources conflict as some are better updated than others); but NWS officials in Nashville and Huntsville always disputed the rating, which was originally assigned by students of Dr. Fujita (I'll have to dig up the links for this, which may take some time). In any case, after reviewing damage photos and inteviewing people who experienced diret damage from the storm, they came to the conclusion that there wasn't any damage consistent with an F5 storm, though there was a lot of F4 damage. Several journalists covered it, and none reported any foundations swept clean, for example. I'll get looking for the NWS links.--Davidals 00:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I've found those two links from the NWS which listed the 2nd Limestone County (#98? by the NWS) twister as F5.

This one [1] does not show any F4 from Limestone County (where Tanner is and which also struck Mt. Hope) there were two mentions of 5's 37 minutes apart in that county. The F3 listed 3 hours after the 2nd tornado was the Huntsville tornado. We could notice also that other counties hit by one of the 2 Tanner twisters were hit by the Guin F5 one as well.

The second one [2] is the list of F5's since 1950 and shows three tornadoes in northwest Alabama in the same date.

However, since it is disputed I'm keeping it as an F4 on the list. This probably similar to many other probable F5's - officially rated F4's such as Red Rock - lack of structure in some areas that could proved it was an F5 --JForget 11:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are the links listing the 2nd Tanner tornado (#97 and 98 on the map) as F4 - the first in sthe Birmingham NWS AL tornado database ([3]) and the 2nd is ([4]). This 2nd is a report published by Mark Rose, focusing on the 1998 F5 in Lawrence County TN; this involved investigating other reported F5's in the area:

"Mr. Boyd was the primary radar operator at the Weather Service Meteorological Observatory at OHX during the super outbreak of 1974 and vividly remembers the event.

From discussions with several NWS employees, including the former state climatologist, the authors were unable to locate anyone who recalled whether the NWS had performed a storm disaster survey in middle Tennessee. However, Professor Fujita and some of his graduate students performed both ground and aerial surveys.

Furthermore, the authors researched several newspaper articles and pictures and spoke with the Lincoln County, TN Emergency Management Agency. All articles the authors researched indicated F3 and F4 damage in Tennessee and Alabama with both tornadoes. In fact, there was "devastating damage," including well-constructed homes leveled, steel structures badly damaged, and many deaths.

However, the authors were unable to locate reference to the "incredible damage" that results from an F5. The authors sent a detailed letter to the SPC recommending the two tornadoes from 1974..., be downgraded to F4. The SPC agreed to all three of these changes. The SPC database now reflects the conclusions of Professor Fujita's map of 1974..."

The Guin and 1st Tanner were definitely F5's, but for the others (also investigated by Thomas Grazulis), it's highly debateable.Davidals 00:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

To put the individual sections of tornadoes in the parent article? (SURVEY)

I'm going to do a little survey here to see whether or not we can put the sections on individual tornadoes to the main Super Outbreak article as to improve that one and possibly putting as a featured article in the future as it would probably make sense to have the parent article be a featured article rather then the one with a long list of tornadoes. That would also eliminate the factor of conflicted/disputed data between the NOAA and other individual websites on the Outbreak if we put the tornado description sections into the Super Outbreak article.

So do you agree or disagree as to put the sections on some of the individual tornadoes (Xenia, Tanner, Lousiville, Brandenburg, etc) to the Super Outbreak page. --JForget 13:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. It will add a lot to the main article. There could easily be more that warrant a section on their own. (As a general rule, I find that a tornado that warrants an article in itself - notwithstanding the outbreak - gets a section, but that changes all the time) I had been focusing on getting several outbreak articles of recent months (last fall and this spring) up towards becoming a GA. CrazyC83 04:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The main Super Outbreak article is a great header, but most of the information is in the Super Outbreak tornadoes article. The community specific information could be considered stub status as articles on their own and reads better in the context of the other tornadoes that happened during the same outbreak. Instead of having the tornadoes classified by state it may read better classified by Fujita scale for comparison purposes. --Chris24 04:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, even if there is little feedback, I will send the tornado paragraphs into the Super Outbreak article--JForget 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)