Talk:2011 Super Outbreak

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)

• Severe Weather Forecasts and Public Perceptions: An Analysis of the 2011 Super Outbreak in Tuscaloosa, Alabama
• Tornado Debris Characteristics And Trajectories During The 27 April 2011 Super Outbreak As Determined Using Social Media Data (this is presently only used to cite the opening sentence, no actual substance used)
• Meteorological Overview of the Devastating 27 April 2011 Tornado Outbreak
• Multiscale Aspects of the 26–27 April 2011 Tornado Outbreak. Part I: Outbreak Chronology and Environmental Evolution
• Multiscale Aspects of the 26–27 April 2011 Tornado Outbreak. Part II: Environmental Modifications and Upscale Feedbacks Arising from Latent Processes
• The Influence of Cell Mergers on Supercell Characteristics and Tornado Evolution on 27–28 April 2011
• Observed Characteristics of the Tornadic Supercells of 27–28 April 2011 in the Southeast United States
• Analysis of Tornado-Induced Tree Fall Using Aerial Photography from the Joplin, Missouri, and Tuscaloosa–Birmingham, Alabama, Tornadoes of 2011
• The 2011 Tornadoes and the Future of Tornado Research

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.

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)

I would think they are. They were both very significant and powerful ~2026-29559-95 (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Split proposed

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.

---

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. HurricaneZeta^C 03:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose we can't split the article that much without making it look unfinished or wonky.

not to mention that the meteorological history of the outbreak alongside most parts of the article wouldn't substantiate an article on their own, so there's basically no pratical or sustainable way to make the article easier to read without entirely remaking the entire article from the ground up. ~2026-13013-32 (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Heavily Support The absurd amount of information necessary to understand the Meteorological Synopsis is a lot, enough to fill its own article. Plus it makes the main outbreak page become harder to navigate. Quincy Gordon (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2026 (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.

Cullman EF4's rating

this needs to be said. Cullman's official rating by the NCDC was high end ef4 of 190 mph. Stop changing it to 175 mph on this page and the Cullman EF4 main page. ~2026-29559-95 (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Damage to Chapel Grove and Sonora Community

I recently added a section for The New Wren EF3, which caused major damage to Chapel Grove, and The Sonora Community. I have found numerous claims and even damage photos from these areas across the internet, but have struggled to find the original sources for them, and feel that it may need to be cited, so if anyone finds sources regarding the damage to these areas, please edit them into the section. I am also gonna continue to try finding sites for the damage as well. ~2026-42304-04 (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2026 (UTC)