WeatherWriter

This may seem random, but I'd like to apologize for the inaccurate argument I made when we were discussing whether or not the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado should be included in the "Possible F5/EF5 tornadoes" section of the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. During the discussion, my final reasoning for being against the tornado's inclusion was "...it moved through forested areas along its ENTIRE journey, so it all came down to contextual evidence of the tornado being EF5, not from not hitting anything (Chapman EF4) or the question of whether EF5 winds may have occurred (Vilonia EF4)." However, while editing the section for EF3 tornado in Western Kentucky from the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024, I noticed that one of the DAT photos showed cycloidal scour marks were left in large farm fields. I decided to do a check of the terrain that the 2021 EF4 Western Kentucky tornado went over and found that the vast majority of it was over farm fields, especially along the beginning of the track, which made my argument invalid. I, therefore, would like to apologize for making a faulty argument, which made it harder to get a consensus for the discussion. I'm not sure if it would have swayed my argument to support the tornado's inclusion, but I still wished I would have checked first before giving my final answer. ChessEric 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh don't worry about that ChessEric! I was wrong on the thinking for the list anyway. I'm trying to get more hard criteria in place for that list as well as WikiProject Weather in general. We have way to loose guidelines that make discussions like what we had two years ago nearly impossible to end. It seems like every month, we have some big discussion that references some past discussions and we either have a different outcome or the same outcome. That is probably unhealthy for the WikiProject and why we probably have such a small editor base. Others are turned away so easily because of random debates. The main problem: We have no hard criteria for really anything. Maybe (just maybe) we can start to actually get criteria in place. We did really well as setting up WP:TornadoCriteria, but that only covers Tornadoes of YYYY articles. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Don't worry about anything from over a year ago! Let's focus on the present and maybe (just maybe) Wikipedia will be a better place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1764 Woldegk tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply