Talk:Winterset tornado

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability table

Table time. EF5 17:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

More information Criteria no., Sub-criteria ...
EF5's Tornado AfD Table
Criteria no. Sub-criteria Description Pass? Fail? Comments
1 (Coverage) 1a Any coverage? checkY KTIV, KCCI, Des Moines Register
1b Any significant coverge? (e.g. CNN or the NYT) checkY NPR, The Guardian
1c Any lasting coverage past 6 months after the tornado? checkY March 2023, March 2023, October 2023, March 2024, May 2024, October 2024
2 (Strength) 2a Was the tornado EF0-EF2? Usually a sign of non-notability, there are exceptions to this though
2b Was the tornado EF3? May be a sign of notability
2c Was the tornado EF4? checkY Usually a sign of notability
2d Was the tornado EF5? If a post-2013 EF5, then an instant pass. Usually a quick-pass
3 (Damage) 3a Did the tornado kill at least one person? checkY Killed seven, notable in this aspect.
3b Did the tornado injure at least one person? checkY Injured six, notable in this aspect.
3c Did the tornado cause monetary damage totaling over $200,000 USD? checkY Costliest of 2022.
4 (Aftermath) 4a Did the tornado significantly damage a town? checkY Heavily damaged Winterset.
4b Any notable deaths? checkY
5 (Content) 5a Is the article not a CFORK of an existing section? checkY Not published yet.
5b Can the content not be easily merged into a section? checkY Not published yet.
5c Is the article longer than the page on its respective outbreak? checkY Not published yet.
5d Is the article a GA, FA or has recently been featured on DYK? checkY Not published yet.
6 (Overall) 6a Are at least five of these criterion met, with exceptions made if needed? checkY If at least 1b, 3b, 3c, 5c and 1c are met, then a pass is warranted. If not, then a fail is warranted. Exceptions can be made at my discretion.
Final verdict: Pass: Easily passes GNG, LASTING, SUSTAINED, and the TOR criteria set in April. I'll work on it today.
Close

Kim Reynolds statement

I can't add it now, but I distinctly remember a comment by Iowa's Kim Reynolds about the response time to issue a warning. This'd go great in the aftermath. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thank you for creating the article! Have a wonderful and blessed day!

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 21 August 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) JuniperChill (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

2022 Winterset tornado → Winterset tornado – Shorter title per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. This tornado holds a very large WP:PRIMARYTOPIC reasoning, with several news articles directly calling it "Winterset tornado", rather than "2022 Winterset tornado". A list of these sources will be below. This tornado was also direct inspiration for the TORNADO Act (Confirmation here; called "Winterset tornado" in article), a currently-proposed U.S. congressional bill, adding additional value to this tornado as a primary topic. After extensive searches, I was unable to locate any other tornadoes that could possibly have been referenced as the "Winterset tornado".

  1. Inside Edition article over a year after the tornado, calling it "the Winterset Tornado" in the title. Date is directly mentioned in the article, due to it being a survivor story, however it is not called "2022 Winterset tornado".
  2. Des Moines Register article 1 year after tornado, calling it "the Winterset tornado".
  3. WHO13 news story calling it "Winterset tornado"
  4. KCCI news article does not reference it as "Winterset tornado" in the article, but rather references it in the URL: "winterset-tornado-devastating-damage-hope-for-recovery".
  5. Peer-reviewed academic paper with reference to this tornado in Winterset.
  6. Peer-reviewed academic paper with reference to this tornado in Winterset.
  7. ResearchGate case study called it "Winterset-Newton tornado" with no year in the sentence. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:27, 21 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I oppose the larger-scale movement to drop the year from a lot of tornadoes just because nothing else hit that same location, because the way I see it, the year should only be dropped if the tornado is sufficiently notorious to where the year is no longer necessary (see Joplin tornado, Jarrell tornado). There is still coverage of the event as "2022 Winterset tornado" and per NCWWW, had I not been already "in" on recent tornado history, I would have no clue where Winterset was and the year very much puts in perspective when it happened. Also, if I'm not mistaken, the tornado struck other places and is referred to by other names besides "Winterset tornado".
However, I can't argue with the fact "Winterset tornado" does appear in a lot of sources and thus this is a clear case of WP:PTOP. I would have absolutely no qualms with adding a redirect at Winterset tornado here (which there already is). However, as most tornadoes except the most notorious simply use NCWWW, I think it should be followed where it can be. Departure– (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Just to note Departure–, the main reason I am proposing dropping the year is not only because nothing else hit the location, but more due to the lasting political effects; specifically the the NWS communications breakdown (Iowa state congress launched an investigation into it), and this issue was the kickstart for creating the TORNADO Act, which will benefit the NWS's warning system and communication ability. That latter source quotes one of the U.S. senators who created the TORNADO Act: "Our bill will ensure NOAA is taking necessary steps to streamline life-saving alert systems and keeping their communication equipment up-to-date". This tornado is one that actually led to something else occurring. So, while completely different in terms of notability from the other tornadoes where the year was dropped (Joplin tornado, Jarrell tornado, Greensburg tornado, ect...), it still has enough of a unique primary-topic situation where the year could be dropped, despite it not being "sufficiently notorious", as you put it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I was unaware of its effects in that regard because I didn't look too deep into that side of things. I agree with your argument of notability but maintain that outside of that context I believe the year is still necessary per NCWWW. Departure– (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Support - no need for the year. Naming conventions are only marginally affected by something's significance. EF5 17:31, 21 August 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.

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@EF5 the first part is posted below. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
@EF5 Would you like me to put this on hold to give you time to work on it? I understand there's quite a bit that needs to be done. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)
@Lightbulb Noob: yes, that would be great. EF5 16:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
Alright Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
I'll get to this shortly; there was an off-wiki incident and thus I'm not really in the headspace to work on anything right now.EF5 20:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
No worries, take your time. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Reviewer: Lightbulb Noob (talk · contribs) 16:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not? I'm excited for this one. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Note that I'm not completely confident this article is of GA quality; but still giving it a shot regardless. EF5 16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
From a brief glance it seems to need some work, but I don't believe it's far enough from the criteria to warrant a quick fail. I'll go through with it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    See below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    For b, and c, see below.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    For a, see below
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No issues, a few recent edits in preparation for this review but nothing else.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    For b, see below.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Prose

Lead

  • The lead could use some expansion, maybe introduce the TORNADO Act, heres a source:
  • "hit areas just outside of Winterset, located near Des Moines" --> "tracked through areas just outside the city of Winterset, which is located near Des Moines"
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The tornado leveled or swept away multiple homes, and received an EF4 rating as a result" --> The tornado damaged and destroyed many residences, with one home being leveled at low-end EF4 intensity.
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The tornado was the most powerful to touch down" --> "The tornado was the most intense" or "The tornado was the highest-rated"
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "inflicting $220 million (2022 USD) worth of damages to the areas it moved through." --> "inflicting $220 million (2022 USD) worth of damages along a 70.57 mile (113.57 km) path.
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The tornado first touched down near Macksburg," --> "The tornado first touched down near Macksburg at 4:26 p.m. CDT,"(insert tag to clarify that other times unless noted otherwise are CDT)
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The tornado continued to move through rural areas, eventually causing damage in portions of the Des Moines metro area before lifting." --> "The tornado continued to move through rural areas, eventually causing damage to portions of the Des Moines metropolitan area before dissipating at 6:00 p.m."
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Meteorological synopsis

  • Hyperlink "slight risk outlook".
 Done, linked. EF5 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "The next day, the SPC upped their alert level to an enhanced risk, centered in Iowa," --> "The following day, the SPC updated the outlook to include an enhanced risk that was centered in Iowa,"
 Done, reworded. EF5 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
  • "increase in destabilization," --> Needs clarification, destabilization of what?
 Done, linked. EF5 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Tornado summary

  • "The tornado first touched down near the intersection of Deer Run Avenue and 280th Street to the north of Macksburg." --> DAT is showing the tornado touched down to the west of Carriage Trail, and to the northwest of Macksburg.
  • "A swath of EF4 damage occurred in this area as several homes were leveled or swept from their foundations." --> Only one house was given a rating of EF4, and the DAT path has no damage polygons to verify.
  • "After the large and destructive tornado exited the Winterset area, it continued to the northeast and passed through rural areas near Patterson,"--> "The tornado continued to the northeast and passed through rural areas north of Patterson,"
  • "estimated to have peak windspeeds" --> "estimated to have maximum windspeeds "
  • "Multiple houses in this area were heavily damaged, a few of which sustained roof loss." --> "Multiple houses in this area were heavily damaged, with a few having their roofs torn away."
  • "This tornado became the first EF4 tornado to occur in Iowa since October 4, 2013, was the deadliest tornado in Iowa since May 25, 2008, and the longest tracked tornado in Iowa since April 27, 2014." --> Iowa is repeated quite a bit, maybe attempt to reword? Might be tricky though.

Aftermath

This section could use some expansion. Here are a few sources to get started, and I would add the TORNADO Act here. A "Casualties" section could be implemented as well.

Images

  • Add more images, such as the tornado's path, into the infobox and/or throughout the article.

References

  • "On March 4, the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issued a slight risk outlook for severe weather for a negatively tilted shortwave trough positioned over the High Plains. The outlook included the possibility of strong winds, large hail, and a 5 percent chance for tornadoes, mostly throughout southern Iowa." Needs the source.
  • "Cars were flipped and thrown, outbuildings were obliterated, debris was strewn long distances, and many large trees were snapped and denuded in this area as well." --> This information is not present in source 8.
  • "exhibiting a multi-vortex structure," --> Not sourced, DAT (source 4) doesn't have this information.
  • "the Norwalk Public Works building had its garage doors blown in," --> Source 10 doesn't have this information.
  • "tornado became increasingly rain-wrapped" --> DAT (source 4) does not have this information.
  • Many sources need the website name hyperlinked, such as KCRA-TV, National Weather Service, etc.
  • "damage to a baseball field," and "Northeast of Newton, the TPI Composites manufacturing plant had a large portion of its roof torn off at the end of the damage path shortly before the tornado dissipated." are not verified by sources 9 and 11.
  • "At least five people were injured." --> For source 12, its likely better to verify with the Storm Events Database pages of this tornado, as "At least" does not seem to be supported by the finalized information. Additionally, the tweet seems to be unnecessary.

Sources Spotcheck

Will wait until more content is added.

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI