This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Super Outbreak article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
2011 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state)
2011 Super Outbreak is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
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.
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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.
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)[reply]
Not seeing an issue with the table here considering the sheer number of tornadoes that occurred, especially on April 27. ChessEric20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. EF519:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
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. EF502:26, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
