Talk:2025 Enderlin tornado

adding better image

The current image is fine, but we can't really see the tornado itself. I say because of this tornado being as significant and historic as it is, and also because there are so many great images of it out there, we make an effort in getting permission from a chaser to include one of their images. We can do this after we flesh out the article because this is a very recent update Tetradisulfate (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently Someone will probably be able to find a free image out there. Kingbob2011 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

this video has some good shots around 4:38 and 5:52 (with permission from OP of course) 2601:247:C803:3C80:F0D1:8213:5CB1:4105 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

most of that is from spiritwood afaik. I REALLY like Alex Resel's photo that was featured in the NWS document, but I don't think we can use that unfortunately :( Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

maybe one of us can be brave enough to ask </3 Featherweight.wx (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I reached out on his instagram, to see if he has an image he's ok for us to use. --Bluelily17 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I got Alex's photo permission with a copy of the photo of the tornado he got Bluelily17 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Bluelily17: tell him to email WP:VRT giving the exact license he put the image under and that we can use the image. ^EF⁵ 18:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Ok I'll copy that to him, I reached out on instagram. Bluelily17 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Also, upload it here if you can, VRT will verify whether the image is legit or not. ^EF⁵ 18:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Celton Henderson: I see you’ve added your image of the tornado. Thanks! I had to of course double check and make sure that it is your own work and sure enough yeah it’s your image. With regards to copyright some users have uploaded images not taken by them but claiming they did which would be a copyvio on their end. So it’s nice to see a storm chaser lend a hand to Wikipedia to use their image with permission. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Did the photo get removed from commons? It's back to the mesocyclone again Featherweight.wx (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Featherweight.wx: no, it was removed as part of the GA review as it currently doesn't have a verified license. Still waiting for WP:VRT to get back. ^EF⁵ 03:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Areselwx:, could you please use WP:VRT to confirm that you took the image? It's of higher quality than the one that was previously in the infobox. ^EF⁵ 13:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Drought Length

I looked and it could be great to note the day length of the drought. From May 20th, 2013 (Moore Oklahoma EF5) to June 20th, 2025 (Enderlin North Dakota EF5) it's 12 years and 1 months, or 4,414 days. This is very historic. The drought is OVER. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way this is the second ever nocturnal EF5, as the Greensburg Kansas EF5 in 2007 was nocturnal. And, also we have finally gotten in the double digits, as this is the 10th ever EF5. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tornado Tracker2: It's actually the eleventh; the 1845 Montville tornado is widely-forgotten for some reason. ^EF⁵ 16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

"for some reason" I wonder why lol NomzEditingWikis (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the user is saying it's the tenth tornado in the United Stated to be given the EF5 rating. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 15:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hackleburg and Moore peak winds

Hackleburg and Moore's estimates both end at 210mph. Enderlin and Piedmont explicitly exceed that at >210. Which means Hackleburg and Moore should not be mentioned as tying Enderlin, only Piedmont should. I tried removing the 2 last night but they were re-added. Featherweight.wx (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They are both still in the 210 mph category which is the highest the tornadoes on the scale have been rated, so this is still accurate. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how 210 is equal to any number greater than 210 Featherweight.wx (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I have to agree, that is the explicit difference between >210 and ≥210. Penitentes (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Ditto. I also don't agree with it being removed. ^EF⁵ 16:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I only added that section because it was already featured in the Moore and Piedmont articles, if its considered OR or too controversial then we need to remove that segment from the other articles Tetradisulfate (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

If we want to keep it then we need a source explicitly making this claim, especially as one will not consider both >210 tornadoes tied. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Going to attempt FA quality

As with Greensburg tornado (ironically that event and this one have numerous similarities), in the coming months I will attempt to get this to WP:FA status. ^EF⁵ 18:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Why "#1" ?

Why in bold text on the first page "Enderlin tornado #1" is "#1"? Kubahgsl (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Because that's what it's referred to in the PNS. I tried to remove the entire statement but was reverted, so that's the best that will come of it. ^EF⁵ 19:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Enderlin, North Dakota EF5 tornado.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review

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

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 14:31, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 00:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll get this one; expect detailed comments within the next day or so.

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• Lead is a little big for my liking, but it covers everything that needs to be covered. Maybe you could get rid of the more detailed stuff in the lead, but otherwise it's pretty good. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done. ^EF⁵ 03:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• On June 15, the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) noted on its Day 6 outlook that a shortwave, mid-level ridge was forecasted to traverse into the upper Mississippi River valley and remain over the region as mid-level heights increase. What does this mean? I am confused. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Instability and deep-layer shear were sufficient for a localized severe threat, though uncertainties remained on where the greatest potential for convection would be. You may want to include more wikilinks here, especially for terms that people unfamiliar with meteorology might not know such as "deep-layer shear". Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• With a strong nocturnal low-level jet forecast to emerge past dusk, low-level shear would also be more than sufficient for strong tornadoes. Explain how this would be sufficient? Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done, removed "sufficient tornadoes" as not mentioned in the source (I think...?) ^EF⁵ 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) Day 2 outlook mentioned that "the nose of the low-level lapse [...] very large hail and tornadoes appear likely." This should be paraphrased; the quote is way too large. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done, removed. I've also removed some excess stuff in this section that was hyper-specific and not supported by sources given. ^EF⁵ 03:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• This image was well-chosen as it has local landmarks and street names to give readers a good visual of the tornado's path. Well done! Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You should thank @WeatherWriter:; I'd love to know how they stitched it together. ^EF⁵ 16:04, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• I feel like you could use source 16 a little bit more, perhaps to back up claims about how many casualties there were or something. This is optional though. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• You also don't have enough about the government shutdown. In my opinion, the government shutdown would probably have a major effect on the aftermath and cleanup, and you could probably expand on that using the sources you already have. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Only a few sources mention the shutdown and none are particularly in-depth, sadly. My goal was to get this to 50,000 bytes, it's just that not a ton of information exists. ^EF⁵ 16:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Good job listing the casualties; however, were there any injuries that did not result in death? If so, list how many. Have there been any estimates on how much the cleanup will cost or property damage? If so, list those as well. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

No, only three people were impacted by the tornado and all three died. No estimates on property damage. ^EF⁵ 16:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

• Most of the images are fine, and I'd even go so far as to say you could even get away with removing a few and it'd probably still pass. The first image is still being discussed over at Commons; if there are any issues, I'd highly recommend replacing it with one of the numerous images already in the article (particularly the one from the Ring doorbell). Valid fair use rationales are in use and the captions are great. Captions are either self-explanatory or link to articles that explain what is needed. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just waiting for VRT to confirm that. The user who sent Henderson the request is a storm chaser themselves and if I'm not mistake has connections in the community, so I trust them. As for the image itself,  Done, I've replaced it. ^EF⁵ 03:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually I'll just leave it as-is; not a huge deal either way and should be resolved shortly. ^EF⁵ 03:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Copyright violations are unlikely according to Earwig, which put the likelihood at around 30%. I think that if you paraphrased a few things here and there, the number would drop but overall it's still not much of an issue for me. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I've paraphrased the above quote in the "meteorological synopsis" section, although I don't know if that brought it down any. ^EF⁵ 03:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Article is broad and clear in a lot of places, and stays focused on the topic. My only complaint here is that a few other tornadoes are discussed in the lead but are not talked about in the body. This is minor though. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

  I removed the 2nd tornado from the lead. ChessEric 05:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

• Overall the article looks solid. I'll do a source spot check later. Gommeh 📖   🎮 15:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)
• Changed my mind after some off wiki discussion about this closure. (originally i had failed it for stability, but found out i misapplied the criteria). Gommeh 📖   🎮 21:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Note I've informed WT:GAN of this discussion for other's opinions on how to interpret stability and GACR3a. I will note that GACR6 explicitly states stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future, although that may or may not apply to GACR3a. That criteria itself states that it allows ... articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and it's debatable whether potential FEMA response to the tornado counts as a "major fact or detail" or not. On edit warring, I have seen zero edit wars that have caused the article to change significantly from day to day as outlined at GACR5, although there have been two minor ones (one earlier today and the other when the article was first started) nevermind, appears the reversions earlier were just a misunderstanding and has been resolved. In my opinion neither have resulted in significant changes to the article's day-to-day appearance, although I've requested an opinion as above from GAN regulars as it's honestly debatable. ^EF⁵ 02:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: Outside of the procedural stuff this should be everything. ^EF⁵ 03:26, 11 October 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.

Argh

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.

---

@ChessEric: just note that I won't be reverting your reversion further as this is actively at GẦN. ^EF⁵ 22:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Plus, thank you for actually explaining your reasoning. ^EF⁵ 22:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Gommeh: An edit war of this sort is exactly what should fail a GAN. In this particular case, the source cited says "preliminary" so we should go by it. @ChessEric: All tornado ratings are subject to change, even this one, so we should not be OR'ing what is preliminary or not.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I (and I'm 99% sure other editors will agree with me on this) *highly* doubt that can be considered edit warring. Content reversions happen all the time. But it has to be more severe than this to be an edit war. You had a point when you brought up the content reversions but after some thought I came to the conclusion that those aren't severe enough to warrant a failure after all. Gommeh 📖   🎮 00:23, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I STRONGLY oppose saying that the EF3 rating being preliminary because we can literally say that for every tornado that has gotten a final report. This was honestly just like every typical intense tornado in the Northern Plains during the Summer. The NWS Grand Forks listed an EF3 rating and initially left it at that. It was only after the fact that they decided to do another analysis. This was the same thing that happened last year with the 2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado and THAT tornado was upgraded AFTER the final report was released. It took 5 months to upgrade this rating after a more extensive review that they didn't have to do and they could've come back and said that they weren't going to upgrade the rating at all. If this had occurred within a week or two, then saying it was preliminary makes sense, but this took 5 months and saying a rating was preliminary for 5 months doesn't make sense to me.

That being said, I'm sorry for starting this argument during an GAN; I didn't even realize that one was put in. I hope this passes. ChessEric 02:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

sorry for reverting the edit earlier, i didn't see this discussion or the ga nomination! anyways my point is that the ef5 upgrade has the standard note that ratings are preliminary and subject to change until final publication. but, the initial ef3 rating was especially prefaced with "It is important to note these results are preliminary and subject to change pending further evaluation... If and when more damage evidence is available, further evaluation of the damage intensity will be investigated." the upgrade pns doesn't say anything that suggests a change is being considered, while this clearly does. i feel like saying that this rating was not preliminary goes against what nws grand forks explicitly said in that first pns. there could totally be a note saying that the ef5 is still considered preliminary but i'm still a bit confused on why you think the ef3 rating wasnt Yobatna (talk) 03:27, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Yobatna, EF5, and Jasper Deng: Apparently, I had not read that good enough because if I had, I probably wouldn't have made a big fuss over it. I apologize as that wording means it WAS preliminary. Carry on. LOL! ChessEric 03:29, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

So this whole thing was just a big misunderstanding... lol. Happens sometimes. I'm assuming this is now resolved? ^EF⁵ 03:33, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes...I will no longer be freaking idiot and READ. XD ChessEric 03:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

glad this was resolved :) Yobatna (talk) 03:45, 11 October 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TechnoSquirrel69 (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Enderlin, North Dakota, tornado earned the first EF5 rating in 12 years by throwing train cars over four times as heavy and nearly twice the distance needed for the rating?

• Source: The source appears on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, and can be found by ensuring the Begin and End Dates specified make a range that include June 20, 2025; then, find the purple EF5 polygon west of Fargo, North Dakota, and click on the southwesternmost purple EF5 damage point at 46.59, -97.56. This might seem convoluted, but this is standard practice within the weather community. The relevant text reads: "Tipped loaded car: The tornado derailed 33 train cars including 19 fully-loaded grain hopper cars and 14 empty tanker cars, mainly tipped from the track. Included in the derailed cars were one filled grain car (~286,000 lbs) and four empty tanker cars (~72,000 lbs) that were pulled into a field away from the track. One of the 4 tanker cars was tossed 600-1000 ft (183-305 m) from the track and an estimated 475.7 ft (145 m) from the distance of the previous tanker car it was attached to before being pulled off of the track; wheel sets detached near the point from which the cars were derailed from the track. It was in this train derailment location that EF-5 damage intensity was noted with greater than 210 mph winds listed officially for this tornado. Extensive collaboration with wind damage experts provided forensic analyses for the train damage that occurred with this tornado. These analyses estimate potential wind speeds of approximately 230 mph are needed to completely overturn a fully loaded grain hopper car. Collaboration with the Northern Tornadoes Project at Western University’s Canadian Severe Storms Laboratory estimated a potential wind speed of >119 m/s (>266 mph) to loft the empty tanker car 475.7 ft (145 m) using similar calculations performed in Estimating Wind Speeds in Tornadoes Using Debris Trajectories of Large Compact Objects (Miller et al. 2024). The study, published in the Monthly Weather Review, found that large compact objects lofted greater than 50 m indicate EF-5 intensity winds (greater than 200 mph). The Enderlin train cars were nearly 2× farther than the EF-5 threshold distance and ~4× heavier than the heaviest object modeled in the study."

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ankarette Twynho
  • Comment: Apologies about the convoluted source. The article is brand new and already at GA, and weatherspace editors are on it with a fervor I haven't seen since I started editing here (except for ongoing storms). I feel it's only right for this to get some recognition (it was at ITN/C but won't be posted), and I've plenty of QPQs leftover. Again, credit to EF5 and ChessEric for this one.

Improved to Good Article status by EF5 (talk) and ChessEric (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 12 past nominations.

Departure– (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC).

Damnit, I was going to nominate with the exact same hook later today lol (do they hand out 4As if you aren’t the one nominating the DYK?). Original hook is interesting as-is. ^EF⁵ 16:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

For the purposes of 4A, I'm fine with you taking credit for this one, as you were the one who basically built this page up to where it is now. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Nono, it’s okay, DYK still counts even if you aren’t the one nominating. Maybe we could use the Alex Resel or Henderson images? ^EF⁵ 16:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I personally think it'd be only right to use the photo of the moved train cars, but sadly this is one of the only cases of free tornado image, non-free damage image. Departure– (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey! Don't forget about me! It said me and EF5! XD ChessEric 16:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that while the article is currently at WP:GAR and will be there for at least a month the nomination is still valid as it was created in the last seven days. ^EF⁵ 13:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• The article has been vetted so thoroughly in what are essentially two GARs that I have 0 doubts about its quality. It was nominated within the time limit. I do wonder whether the hook could be simplified to be more accessible to the general audience. "EF5" does not mean anything to most of us, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–, EF5, and Surtsicna: How does this sound then?

ALT1 ... that the 2025 Enderlin tornado lifted multiple freight train cars into the air?

I imagine that that it is not unheard of for tornadoes to lift vehicles into the air, but for a layperson, this probably gets the job done without reliance on specialist terminology like EF strength. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Here's an idea:

ALT2 ... that the 2025 Enderlin tornado lofted and threw loaded train cars further than its surveyors had seen lighter vehicles thrown?

Let me know what you think. A good bit of the interesting-ness of this, to me, comes from how surveyors hadn't seen this to this extent to then. Departure– (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: looks good, but I don't see where that would be sourced from. I say if we have a source for it we're good to go. ^EF⁵ 15:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I think the source from the DAT (outlined in the nom) works (though, on second thought, maybe replace "surveyed" with "accounted for"). How about...

ALT3 ... that the 2025 Enderlin tornado threw train cars nearly twice as far as researchers up to then had accounted for?

@Narutolovehinata5: Let me know what you think of this (and if you have any trouble getting to the source). Departure– (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

For DAT, I have a short guide on how to use it at User:EF5/How to use DAT. Looks good to me. ^EF⁵ 16:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Any update on this nom? Departure– (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I will leave the final decision to Surtsicna, but I prefer my wording as ALT2 and ALT3 seem just a bit more abstract or at least complicated in terms of understanding. ALT1 could probably be workshopped more, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:52, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Please address the above.--Launchballer 12:53, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that ALT2 is too complicated, but I also think that Departure– is right about ALT1 not being as interesting as a hook from this article could be. In my opinion ALT3 is the perfect middle ground. Surtsicna (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: This is still in need of a full review: simply saying that "it was thoroughly vetted at GAN" does not count, as a DYK-specific review is still needed. Per the above discussion, ALT3 appears to be the compromise option, so that can be approved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Right. Well, nominated shortly after achieving GA status, long enough, no obvious copyright or neutrality issues, presentable, QPQ done, hook settled. Surtsicna (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Radar image

A few days ago, I noticed that the radar scan in the infobox was the 0411z scan, yet the image description still says "near peak intensity." However, there is another scan (0408z) that is even closer, but even that one is still after the train I believe. So I changed it to the 0408z scan, including velocity since the velocity signature could be notable to the article (it is mentioned in the PNS.) This morning, it was changed back to 0411 and I'm not sure why, since the two-panel 0408z scan is more accurate to peak intensity *and* is more notable to be included in the article. I think another editor tried to bring back the 0408z scan as well, but it was changed again. I want to avoid an edit war here, so I'm just asking for a little bit of consensus on what to do here. Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. It's still there, just further down in the article. My bad! Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, now it is fully removed. I don't really think that's right, for the reasons described in the original message. Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Because we don't need two separate images of the same radar scan. ^EF⁵ 17:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

They aren't the same scan, and the one I'm talking about is more notable due to the PNS Featherweight.wx (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Upgrade section

Do we really need a separate section? This section almost entirely duplicates the description of this damage in the met synopsis and adds little new information. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not a separate section, but I do still think the information would be useful somewhere in the aftermath section. If anything just remove the sub header. ^EF⁵ 18:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The aftermath section should be about the impacts themselves, not what the damage was rated as. We don't, for example, talk about Hurricane Michael's post-season Category 5 upgrade in its aftermath section. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Aftermath sections for tornadoes usually cover casualties, recovery efforts, the rating (if needed) and damage. The rating was part of the tornado's aftermath, so I personally think it should be included there in some way. Might just be me, though. Not exactly sure how hurricanes do it but I do know that in the case of Hurricane Andrew it's included in a "meteorological history" article. ^EF⁵ 18:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Weird, I could've swore that was included in a met-history article. Anyways. ^EF⁵ 18:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't make it right to do here. Duplicate content is not MOS-compliant.

The other solution would be to pare down the description in the synopsis to only mention that it was first EF3 and then EF5, with details to follow further below. But we cannot have duplicate content at this level, and I believe this article in general was passed to GA prematurely. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

And I disagree with you about that, but I'm really not wanting to argue about this. If you think it was premature, take it to WP:GAR, where it can be decided. ^EF⁵ 18:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2025 Enderlin tornado

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: Kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

This article should not have been passed and the review, quite frankly, was far from thorough.

• The lead is on the long side, 362 words, for the length of this article.
• Though it is good that the EF5 damage information was consolidated, now the tornado summary doesn't mention when in the storm's history the (specifically) EF5 damage occurred and where. That should still be mentioned.
• The meteorological synopsis is too WP:TECHNICAL without enough explanation of the jargon used.
• Factual accuracy is compromised by the extensive usage of DAT to say the tornado "weakened" or "intensified." Especially in the upper end, these damage ratings are often only lower bounds. This to me really reeks of WP:OR and definitely does not comply with WP:SECONDARY as DAT is only a primary source.
• The information about how aid was affected by the shutdown is misleading or incomplete. Why wasn't aid disbursed before the shutdown, given that it was two months between the tornado and the shutdown? Why or how does that have to do with the rating of the tornado?
• "construction limitations restricted said damage points from being rated EF5." No, those were construction deficiencies or flaws. There was nothing in principle preventing construction to better standards.
• The mention of the additional EF2 tornado is tangential at best.
• There has been a recent edit war over a prominent image, namely the radar images and also, a reverted page move. I still think this article was not stable enough and still is not stable enough.
• There needs to be more discussion about the 266 mph figure, which should not only be in a footnote when it's in the infobox.
• DAT images are not necessarily public domain. The images should be thoroughly reviewed for licensing.
• The statement by Melinda arguably better belongs in the article on the drought.
• What is "KMVX"? Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Note that whether or not the initial review is valid, as an active member of the weather community and someone with a vested interest in this article, I will make an effort to correct any of these grievances (of course, a GAR shouldn't need the article to be of featured quality; but nonetheless I'll help where I can). Departure– (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  No, a GAR should be based solely on the six GA criteria outlined at WP:GACR. I will make an equal effort as I think this is one of the more impressive things WPWX has pulled off in the last few months. ^EF⁵ 20:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  For the met section, I see nothing wrong with it. (And also I only wrote out the first paragraph of the met section, and honestly it looks completely fine.) Hoguert (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  The layperson does not know what a ridge is or what it means to be shortwave, terms used in the very first sentence. They don't know how this leads to tornadoes. It needs to be made more accessible. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I don't really know how this would be detrimental to the article's GA status. Hoguert (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  It’s technically part of 1a. Simple wikilinks should fix the issue. ^EF⁵ 20:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  Added wikilinks Hoguert (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

  There are still unexplained technical terms like "trough". Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Honestly, I feel like this is a minor nitpick on an issue that shouldn't hold back an article from getting GA status. Hoguert (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, these aren’t strictly part of the GA criteria. “Understandable to a general audience” doesn't mean FA-level explanations of every complicated word. ^EF⁵ 23:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

  I 3rd this. There is only so much breakdown you can do for the lay audience when it comes to describing weather patterns. That's why we have the links for people to use if the want more information about what a trough, shortwave, ridge, etc. is. Most people that will view this article will be looking for the tornado summary and not the MET anyway. ChessEric 14:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  @EF5: You admitted it is part of 1a, and wiki linking "trough" takes a few seconds. One reason I opened this GAR is to teach everyone here that GA's require a level of thoroughness I have not seen here. You were lucky you got an overly lenient reviewer. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, and I said that wikilinks could fix the issue. GARs shouldn’t also be “lessons” (whatever that means); they should be focused on bringing an article back up to GA standards. I couldn’t care less whether I got “lucky” or not. ^EF⁵ 19:41, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  ...this is why I took issue with the GAR because I knew this one was not made because of concerns over content, but rather a way to prove something. GARs are meant to review and update content, correct errors, and rewrite things based on up-to-date guidelines from Wikipedia. We don't teach lessons with GARs; we leave that stuff for talk pages because that's the appropriate thing to do. I haven't liked the way all these individual articles have popped up either, but I don't think this is the right way to do it. Besides, we are all experienced writers who have worked on dozens of articles on Wikipedia; I myself have been editing on here for 5 years. Nitpicking about certain things and trying to get articles written in one specific style isn't "teaching": it's bullying. People who aren't weather aficionados like us aren't going to understand a lot of things, and I think it is unreasonable for us to have to explain every little detail when links can help cover that. ChessEric 20:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ditto, I feel the same. ^EF⁵ 22:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  "Trough" is still not wikilinked. So it's unexplained. GAC 1a can't be waived just because you don't want to put in a few seconds to wikilink key terms. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is now Hoguert (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I also find it concerning that you called someone an "overly lenient reviewer". What do you mean by that? Are you saying that that person is incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to review articles? What if someone called you an "overly strict reviewer"? That wouldn't make you feel good, would it? I honestly think you should review what you said and reword it to not sound like you're attacking someone. ChessEric 20:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  If I'm an overly strict reviewer, I have no problems with that. I'm not the only one to say the original reviewer was in error to pass this; WT:GAR has two editors agree with me that it was and is too unstable of an article to pass. Additionally, the issues I'm identifying are ones of basic composition and I keep finding them, something that should be done before a GAN. The fact that I keep finding them is evidence that the original review and nomination were not thorough enough. GA's are not trophies to be had and hastily ramming through GAN's creates more work, as you can see. The end result is everyone is having to improve the article so that it actually meets the criteria. The last GAN I reviewed took weeks to get resolved but, if I remember correctly, went on to be an FA. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

  I didn't say you were an overly strict reviewer; I asked how would you feel if someone called you as such. It's obvious that you took offense to that, so I assume that you didn't like it. Also, we aren't trying to get trophies here. If anything, we are trying to make these GAs because we want them to be well-written pieces for the greater audience. I could also care less about what was the outcome of your last GAN. We're talking about this article and not any other one. If anything, it sounds like you're trying to parade it in our faces that the review you did helped get an article to FA status like some sort of trophy yourself. Regardless of whether or not this was a hasty GA passing, trying to make an example out of one article is wrong. I'll end off with this; experienced writers like us don't take "lessons" here; we give suggestions and advice on how to improve every articles. I implore you to take personal feelings and motives out of this, just like you told me to do when the GAR first started. ChessEric 17:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. And many of the issues brought up aren’t even part of the GA criteria - things like duplicate sections and the quote issue. That’s why I take issue with this whole GAR. ^EF⁵ 18:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  Duplicate sections is a violation of the layout guidelines that are part of the GAC.

  The fact that you two take issue with this GAR does not change for a bit that you did not write adequately for the GAC in the first place. It doesn't matter how experienced you are (in fact I have been editing for longer than both of you combined, so do not try to play the "we're experienced so we don't need to listen" card).

  If you don't like doing a GAR, do not leave numerous basic problems like the ones I keep finding. It improves the encyclopedia to have you fix them so what I'm doing is constructive. Yelling, on the other hand, is not. No amount of expedience excuses how sloppy this job was in the first place. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not yelling. I've literally been writing weather articles for over a decade. Also, I am going to say "we are experienced and we don't have to listen to you" because all you're saying is "it's baldy written" and "it's badly written." WHAT is badly written? I don't care how much longer you've been writing then us; if you won't tell us what's badly written, then I don't know what to fix and will assume that you just don't like my writing. Again, we aren't here to take "lessons" and be "taught" anything. We may learn and improve, but this isn't a classroom. In any case, I'm going to get back to the topic at hand since this isn't getting us anywhere. You say that we have not done enough to explain the MET. What else do you want done? ChessEric 19:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  You just contradicted yourself when you WP:SHOUT'd here. As for "badly written", the growing list of corrections says it all–including a clunky sentence that still has not been fixed, mentioned further down. It's a confusing sentence. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  (A) That's not how you started the GAR; you just said it was badly written, (B) I was talking about before the last comment about the yelling, not that comment, and (C) you didn't answer my question: what about the MET do you want rewritten? ChessEric 03:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  I never claimed that the list I posted at the start was the complete list of problems that needed fixing. There are unaddressed points about the meteorology section below that you clearly did not bother to read. Jasper Deng (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  You started accusatory and that's not how you start a GAR. Also, you have not answered my question that I asked here. We started the conversation here and that's where I plan to continue it. ChessEric 18:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Quick note that if sanctions or anything else are pursued, I do not endorse a report nor do I wish to get involved in it. ^EF⁵ 21:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Weird, I can’t find @ChessEric:’s most recent message. Regardless, we should probably all just just drop it, as I don’t think anybody here wants to get into a dispute over such a minor thing. ^EF⁵ 21:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

  Whatever; I'm done with this. I'm not here for lessons and will no longer participate here. I wish he would just rewrite it himself instead of accusing people of badly writing things like we have no sense or education. ChessEric 21:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• @ChessEric: I am not interested in further engagement with you as you have only been interested in this petty argument instead of addressing the multiple corrections I've been raising in this process. It doesn't matter how much experience the authors of this article have if said corrections are needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• I’ll address each point here:

  • Lead length is not part of the six Good Article criteria.
  • I’ll get to this shortly.
  • @Hoguert: you wrote the summary, could you address this?
  • I’m not seeing the issue here, although a second opinion would be great.
  • Not much sourcing exists on the shutdown or how it affected response, hence this can’t be expanded on. Good Articles are based on presently-sourced material at the time of review, and not much exists. I asked this at WT:GAN and was unanimously met with responses that potential future FEMA responses here do not count against GACR6 or 3a.
  • For the construction limitations, while I will address this, I’m not seeing how this in itself should count towards this being re-assessed.
  • Not really, several sentences on it are mentions at the end of the tornado summary section.
  • Stability is explicitly mentioned at WP:GAR as a reason not to re-assess an article, so this is not a viable reason to do so.
  • Will add shortly.
  • DAT images are in the public domain unless stated otherwise, which is generally accepted and exists in many GAs; there is a fair-use image of the EF5 train damage which can be discussed but GAR isn’t the right place to do so.
  • Not part of the six GA criteria, and should have been discussed at the talk page.

  I’ll address the comments that I think need addressing, but a some of this isn’t part of the six GA criteria. I’m glad it was brought here, however, so this can be settled (/srs). ^EF⁵ 20:36, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  I’m on mobile so I am not going to go through source editing hell to edit my list, but - I think I was wrong about lede length, it is part of the criteria. But the length isn’t terribly wrong to me; I’ve seen much longer in articles of similar length (prior to my removals this morning, of course). And I’m hoping we can get through this civilly; I’ll try my best to be respectful so call me out if I’m not. ^EF⁵ 20:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  @EF5: note that the lead length once again needs to be trimmed after @ChessEric: added some text to it.

  The reason I'm requesting a trimming is that this article is on the short side, and the low end of the ideal lead length is about 250 words. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  I cut out the second paragraph and essentially merged a small portion of it into third paragraph. ChessEric 04:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  @MarioProtIV: Do not undo everyone's hard work remedying the issues cited in this GAR. Your recent edit was not constructive and was a step back. White space concerns take a back seat to lead size norms and in any case are not valid on mobile,--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

  Compliance with layout guidelines is part of the GAC, including lead length. That's why your original reviewer mentioned it. Also, lack of stability at the time of the original GAN is definitely grounds to draw the original review into question. Not defining a term like KMVX is also a compromise on well-written ness.

  The only point I withdraw is the point about DAT images and licensing. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  From WP:GAR - Many common problems (including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Style) are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore are not grounds for delisting. Instability in itself is not a reason to delist an article. - I’m not seeing where it says this can be discarded because of instability at the original review. If you want I can bring it up at WT:GAR. ^EF⁵ 20:45, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  This point applies when it's been a while since the original review. In this case, said instability is the same one that is part of the grounds to not have approved the article in the first place. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  We have conflicting viewpoints on this, so I’ll bring it up there to see what others thing, as that’s usually the best way to solve something like this. ^EF⁵ 20:49, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Ugh, I hate autocorrect. “Think”. ^EF⁵ 20:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Regarding the shutdown: right now it can be read to imply that aid was only ever going to come if it got an EF5 rating, which I doubt. Maybe it just wasn't approved before the shutdown, but that doesn't seem right either, and if it is, has nothing to do with the rating. As-is, it's confusing. If sourcing is too unclear, boil it down to exactly what the source says, paraphrased, and leave room for doubt. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  Not gonna comment on this further because I'm not super interested in weather and reviewed this as part of a WP:GARC, but as the original reviewer I too want to stress that GA candidates are only assessed on the six GA criteria; some of the other grievances you have are more reviewer/nominator preference and not necessarily requirements for GA. That's my two cents, good luck on the reassessment @EF5! Gommeh 📖   🎮 20:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

  You are still not answering my questions and I've tried to talk to you civilly. I will be bringing this up to others to take the appropriate actions on this matter. ChessEric 20:26, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

The last point has been  Done by @ChessEric:. I'll be at an Air Base for the rest of tonight so I can't address the other concerns, although I'll definitely have them done sometime tomorrow. ^EF⁵ 21:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I very much disagree and am offended with the whole weakening and strengthening argument. That was NOT OR, and was based of the DAT AND BOTH PNSs for this event. The satellite view on Google Maps and Street View on ND 46 and County Road 38 also shows this damage. I'm VERY careful when it comes to listing weakening and strengthening trends of tornadoes and would not say that they strengthened or weakened when I'm writing up sections and articles if there isn't clear and obvious evidence that it did. ChessEric 02:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I checked all the citations and the ones given for intensity changes are all DAT. The problem is that damage is often only a lower bound and it's very possible the tornado's peak at the slabbed house was even greater than at the railroad. You can't infer otherwise here. In other words, the section as you wrote it is lacking in WP:SECONDARY sources for the intensity changes, as opposed to the damage.

Also, you reintroduced the duplicated content that @EF5: moved to the rating upgrade section. Now this makes the article further from the reasonably well-written criterion of GAC. Please undo your edit and let them do as I requested in this GAR, namely describing only what the tornado did and not why it was rated EF5 there. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

If these were to be removed, what other wording would you suggest? I can't come up with anything. ^EF⁵ 12:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just say it caused EF5 damage by tossing and tipping the rail cars, optionally with numbers of how many and how far, and when. The analysis itself can go in the upgrade section. ChessEric's latest changes seem to have done this, so this particular point can be considered resolved (but notably not the OR concerns). Jasper Deng (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

You can literally say that about every tornado that has ever occurred since they are rated based on the damage they did and so I very much disagree with your assessment. Also, the description of WHY the damage was rated EF5 should not cause the GA to fail AND it WAS NOT in the rating upgrade section. THAT'S why I put it back. It needs to be either be left as it is or moved to the section with the description of WHAT derailed and HOW it derailed. ChessEric 15:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:OSE does not excuse a violation of WP:SYNTH. Even NWS is cautious to make claims about whether a tornado weakened or strengthened unless hard, direct, measurements confirm that. DAT on its own does not. Jasper Deng (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the way I handled this situation. I'll work to do better. I'll also rewrite the summary. ChessEric 01:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I amended the tornado summary. There are now only three places where I noted that the tornado gained or lost strength. The first two are at the beginning, where I put that the tornado intensified from EF0 to EF2 and then from EF2 to EF5. This last one was at the end, where I put that the tornado weakened and then dissipated. These trends were based on the information in the PNSs. ChessEric 14:05, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is better, but "strength" should also not be inferred (as in "EF2 strength") when there's even a remote chance that said damage is only a lower bound. The scouring of the field, for example, might only be rated EF2-3 due to limitations of the damage indicator system. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Additional concerns:

• The caption for the DAT screenshot map is confusing because the given legend is for our own color scheme and not the DAT one. Additionally, the overlay distorts the colors. This compromises factual accuracy and the simplest solution is to just get rid of that legend.
• "The method to..." describing how it was estimated is redundant in that this opening "the method" is followed by "a new method".

--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Done both, although I'll note that the legend is both beneficial to readers and used in countless tornado GAs, so if it's re-added I'm not reverting it. ^EF⁵ 12:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

It's emphatically not beneficial for a map which uses a different color scale from ours, unless it's changed so that the colors match the scale used in that map.

Also, the rewrite is clunky (not well written): in "The method by which the intensity of the tornado, and thus the upgrade to an EF5 rating, was calculated from the train cars was by using the distance of large, compact objects lofted and thrown by a tornado.", it is hard to infer what the object of this sentence is, and there's an awkward "was" repetition. I suggest using a more active voice to eliminate the awkward usage of "was".--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@EF5 and ChessEric: This poor writing still needs to be addressed. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you pinged me; that part wasn't written by me. ChessEric 20:17, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You're one of two people primarily involved with this article and GAR. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so your concerns so far:

• Done.
• Done.
• Being worked on.
• Under discussion above.
• Done as already discussed - it is physically impossible to tell you why aid went out that late and the rating because sourcing is virtually non-existent. Thus, this cannot possibly be actioned on. Trust me, if I did find info, I would add it, but I'm just not seeing anything.
• Done, I believe.
• Done.
• Under discussion.
• Done, I believe.
• Withdrawn above.
• I'm not doing this but somebody else can if they feel it's important enough.
• Done.

Will update as changes are made. ^EF⁵ 12:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

• Quick comment on DAT screenshots: This was something I found out earlier during the 2023 Robinson-Sullivan tornado's initial creation process. The DAT has clear copyright disclaimers for its underlying mapping data (and the area the Enderlin polygon is over specifically uses data from SafeGraph, Garmin, and TomTom (private companies), and Cass County, North Dakota (which is not part of the federal government and thus is not automatically public domain)). There is agreement that copyrighted materials on NWS websites hosted at weather.gov are not suitable for upload (typically any labeled "Photo by (name)", or "Credit: (name)"), but my attempt to open a wider discussion on Commons was met with zero participation-, and discussion here on Wikipedia consisted of weatherspace editors arguing that, since the DAT tool itself is run by the federal government, any screenshots of it are automatically public domain, and that since there's already a lot of DAT screenshots on Commons there's precedent to keep them up. The underlying polygons and data points created by the NWS, however, are undoubtedly free, and could be transferred onto a free mapping release, such as OpenStreetMap. Departure– (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Why don't we just remove it, then. It's too big and is taking up most of the tornado summary section regardless. ^EF⁵ 14:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of removing it, but again, I want to make clear this is a chronic problem on tornado articles in specific. Departure– (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: nevermind, the uploader themselves already used OpenStreetMap. ^EF⁵ 14:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

P.S., the really big track of the tornado was made on OpenStreetMap which is a free map. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Just a small confirmation, I have confirmed (and practically recreated) File:Enderlin supercell tornado paths.png on the DAT…2 Mile scale zoom on “Terrain with labels” background. If we start a large DAT map discussion, please include that image in it, as it was published by NWS with their logo, but on the DAT. You are also free to discuss the maps I made on OpenStreetMap. Just wanting to drop this here. WeatherWriter (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

@EF5, I'll get to the meteorological synopsis soon. Sorry if the previous summary I did make for the meteorological history was unclear to others, as general note. ~ Tails Wx 22:31, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Were five cars thrown (tornado summary) or four (rating upgrade)? This contradiction needs to be fixed too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Five cars were thrown; the grain car in the rating upgrade section is noted to have been "pulled off the tracks and into an adjacent field." ChessEric 17:52, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That needs to be distinguished from having merely rolled the car along the ground. Jasper Deng (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand. I'll amend that. ChessEric 03:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: "On" in "On the evening hours of" is the wrong preposition to use for a sub-day period of time.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:23, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Already done HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 17:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"The SPC released a mesoscale discussion concerning this with the potential for EF2/EF3 strength-tornadoes to occur as a result." – the hyphen is misplaced here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it. ChessEric 13:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Enderlin is also overlinked in the lead.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I only found one link for Enderlin in the lede. Did I miss another one? ChessEric 13:58, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The extra one appears to have been removed with the undoing of Mario's edit. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

"winds of over 266 mph (428 km/h) to throw the tank car 475.7 ft (145.0 m)." The noun "tank car" should be indefinite since "grain car" is also indefinite. There's no reason to suggest this reasoning applies to only this particular tank car and not other tank cars that might get hit.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

The wind estimate was only for that specific tank car that was thrown, so that doesn't apply to the other tank cars. ChessEric 20:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

But the study pre-dates the tornado, so this conclusion has to not be specific to that particular tank car. To put it another way, wouldn't it apply to any other tank car of that exact composition thrown that distance? Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Feel free to revert me on this though HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 17:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

No, it would not because the tank car in question was thrown 600–1,000 ft (180–300 m); the 475.7 ft (145.0 m) figure was how far it landed from the tank car it was attached to. Also, it said >266 mph (428 km/h), not 266 mph (428 km/h), which indicates a range of values, not a specific value. The same goes with weight; the tank cars were up to 72,000 lb (33,000 kg), not 72,000 lb (33,000 kg), which again indicates a range of numbers and not a specific value. I've recorded hundreds of trains in my life, and one thing I can tell you about them is that no two trains are alike. They have different consist, different locomotives, different max speeds, etc. You have to factor in the age of the car, its mileage, its maintenance history, the track conditions, the terrain, etc. This one tank car is not the same as the thousands of other tank cars out there, so trying to say it is is incorrect. ChessEric 17:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't change what I said. There's no way a study that was published the previous year can make a claim about that particular train car. If you still insist that this noun be definite, then "grain car" also needs to be definite. This is basic parallelism. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Then what are you asking to be done here? ChessEric 19:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Leave it as HurricaneZeta made it. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"The town of Enderlin was not affected by the tornado itself" – "itself" is misplaced. It should be after "Enderlin"; it is superfluous at its current placement.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Addressed Hoguert (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Cite errors with reference 39 (the all-important study): Retrieved May 29, 2024. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |url-access=open. Not only is there an invalid url-access parameter but there is no way this reference could have been retrieved over a year before this tornado happened!--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done I've also changed the published date to August 1, 2024, as that's when the study was released in print as per the source. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 22:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"The tornado then turned north-northeastward, growing to its peak width of over a mile" – need to provide a metric unit conversion for "a mile".--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Reworded Hoguert (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"and scouring additional crop fields at EF2 strength" – not in PNS nor DAT. It may have caused damage rated EF2 but that only means it's strength was at least EF2, not that it couldn't have been stronger.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Addressed Hoguert (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"The second house, located approximately 300 yd (270 m) to the west of the first along 140th Avenue SE, along with nearby outbuildings, were leveled." – the subject of this sentence is still singular, so "were" should be "was". "I, along with the rest of the team's players, was awarded a gold medal". If you can find a way to make the subject a compound plural noun, that might flow better, but as-is, this is a grammar error.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Grammar correction Hoguert (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"The tornado then began a dramatic, rapid intensification and widening phase as it turned northeastward" – the comma is not needed there. I am not a fan of the WP:PEACOCK word "dramatic" here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done removed the dramatization and comma Hoguert (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"The NWS in Grand Forks, North Dakota, originally gave the tornado an EF3 rating" This mention of the office name should be switched with the following one. Abbreviations and acronyms should not be used before they are defined. Make sure all such acronyms used comply with this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Replaced the acronym Hoguert (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

"After the tornado, a statewide disaster was declared by the Governor of North Dakota following the tornado outbreak and derecho that impacted the state." – this sentence is confusing with both "after" and "following". It really should not have both the preceding and trailing qualifying clauses. Since the state of emergency was due to the whole outbreak, the outbreak should be the one left in.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Reworded HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 17:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"The tornado occurred exactly 68 years after the 1957 Fargo tornado, which was the last F5/EF5 tornado to strike North Dakota prior to this tornado." – this is in the lead but not in the body. This bit of trivia seems WP:UNDUE to be mentioned in the lead over other aspects of the tornado.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done removed HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 16:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Put it in the See Also then. ChessEric 19:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 15:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"Its final rating was upgraded to EF5, with maximum winds estimated to be over 210 miles per hour (340 km/h; 94 m/s) on the Enhanced Fujita scale." The scale itself really refers to the six EF(0-5) categories. "On the Enhanced Fujita scale" should be moved to the first clause.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 16:56, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The first footnote, about the 266 mph figure, cites a PNS. This PNS does not mention that figure so this is an instance of inadequate citation of sources. Additionally, the article should not describe this rating as a "final rating" when the PNS's footer explicitly says it is still preliminary pending publication in Storm Data.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

What do you suggest should be done? HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 17:11, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Cite a source that does mention 266 mph, like elsewhere in this article. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Someone put the DAT ref in please. ChessEric 19:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Have cited the DAT using {{Cite DAT}} @ChessEric HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 16:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

We have another sourcing problem: how do we know the train cars had not been rated at all before the new announcement? How do we know it was not upgraded from some earlier preliminary value? --Jasper Deng (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

https://x.com/NWSGrandForks/status/1938364523917844827 It was unrated, tweet from the official NWS Grand Forks account themselves. The Grey Damage Indicator were the trains. Hoguert (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Then this needs to be cited. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Hoguert (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

"based on the Monte Carlo median results and the weight and distance of objects lofted"–which Monte Carlo results? Monte Carlo simulations are usually more than just throwing darts at a wall. The wikilink isn't terribly helpful in helping readers understand this. --Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done NomzEditingWikis (talk) 06:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the check mark thing, someone can edit my comment if they know how to NomzEditingWikis (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Use {{done}}. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I added the {{Done}} HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 15:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

The rewrite is better but still needs work. "simulations on cumulative distribution functions showing the likelihood of lofting at each wind speed" needs to wikilink cumulative distribution functions. If I had to guess, the CDF's were empirically determined from Monte Carlo simulations; if so, that needs to be how it's worded. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Partly done Wikilinked CDF HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 15:45, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

"featured moderate upper-level divergence to promote lift and shear support" – wikilinks are needed and "shear support" is too vague, and when searched out of context means a building support, very different from what's intended here. Since shear is mentioned already, this mention might not be needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done NomzEditingWikis (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

• Alright, keep. Every major issue brought up has been addressed, even ones that I don't think were part of the six GA criteria in the first place. There has not been any "edit-warring" since the GAR began. I am voting based on the article's current state and not the review itself, as that is a counterproductive invocation of this process. No other comments in 5 days, either, which tells me there isn't anything else major. ^EF⁵ 12:44, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

One last note here - there have been reverts made, but none I see constitute significant edit warring and the article does not change significantly from day to day. As stated at WP:GACR and above, stability is based on the article's current state, not any potential for instability in the future, and hence I'm not factoring the "GAR is based on the original review" rationale into my vote. ^EF⁵ 14:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Keep per EF5 HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 13:48, 27 October 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.

Requested move 20 October 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

---

2025 Enderlin tornado → Enderlin tornadoEnderlin tornado – If I'm not mistaken, this page has been boldly moved twice, from 2025 Enderlin tornado, to Enderlin tornado, and back. Mostly just want to settle this, but I think "Enderlin tornado" is the better option as a ef3/f3+ tornado has never come close to Enderlin, nevertheless an EF5 tornado NomzEditingWikis (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCWWW. "In the majority of cases, the title of the article should contain the following three descriptors When the incident happened, Where the incident happened, What happened. The only cases where we omit the year is if it's such a widely known event that a year is unnecessary. That clearly isn't the case here.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

  It is the most commonly used name to refer to the tornado and per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, should be the article title, especially when disambiguation with another event is unnecessary. NomzEditingWikis (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close per the above. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 12:09, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose- per above reasoning. I don’t feel the tornado is known widely enough outside of the meteorological community to warrant this. PicturesOfTrickery (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per above 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:E905:4056:93AC:8609 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Support - WP:NCWWW says "in the majority of cases". No other tornado has ever hit an Enderlin, so the year is objectively not needed. ^EF⁵ 12:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It goes on to clarify when you might omit the year at WP:NOYEAR. That says "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. As this is a judgement call, please discuss it with other editors if there is disagreement". That is usually taken - in RMs projectwide - not just to mean it's unambiguous, but also to mean it's an event of high significance and notability, such as Tenerife airport disaster. As much as the Enderlin tornado was quite a major one, I don't think it's an event of exceptional significance or widely known by the general public globally such that they'd immediately know what you were talking about even without a year.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Neutral I had actually changed this before, but it was reverted, so I'm not giving an opinion here. ChessEric 16:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Year isn't needed as there's no other tornado that hit Enderlin HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 17:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per above and for the sake of consistency. Lnc2005 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Timcigar12 (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose, not the least because it is highly unlikely there have been no other tornadoes in this area, especially as the article itself says there was another one rated EF2.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Jasper Deng. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Lnc2005. PolarisNC (they/them) 16:14, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as long as other articles (such as Greensburg Tornado and Smithville Tornado) get the year added back to their names. If not, then neutral. Featherweight.wx (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe all tornado articles should have the year in their titles. Featherweight.wx (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Wait/Oppose – I believe in waiting at least a year after the tornado hit before deciding whether or not to omit the year from the title. So treat this as "oppose" for the purposes of this discussion, but not "opposed for good". If the media is referring to this as the "Enderlin tornado" instead of the "2025 Enderlin tornado" a year or two from now, then I may be more inclined to support. But any time before late 2026 or 2027, and I'm going to oppose as too soon/jumping the gun. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 19:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Amakuru. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 13:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per all the above. Better to include the year than to leave readers asking more questions. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 10:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Comment There is a discussion regarding wider usage of the year in the title of tornado articles ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC on the naming of tornado articles that directly mentions this discussion and further deliberations regarding the outcome can be moved there. Departure– (talk) 13:30, 26 October 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.

Why was this downgraded to an EF4

This is incorrectly reported ~2025-35718-31 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it was done by a random unregistered user. Possibly vandalism. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Article Name

I think it should be named "Enderlin tornado" instead of "2025 Enderlin tornado" similarly to how Greenfield's article is "Greenfield tornado" and not "2024 Greenfield tornado", especially considering how Enderlin to my knowledge hasn't been hit by a tornado prior to the EF5. Le Hurricane (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Then create a RM, but the current consensus is to keep the year. shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:55, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Lead

I really don’t see any issue including a summary paragraph of the tornado in the lead, and even looking at the GAR the arguments don’t seem to add up considering multiple other intense GA tornadoes have longer leads and suddenly it’s an issue here. The reader must know a brief summary of the tornado, and not including a brief paragraph actually degrades the quality, IMO. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 06:19, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This is not a long tornado article so its lead section needs to not be long. The tornado is more notable for its rating than its exact damage so the rating takes priority.

I really strongly dislike that you attempted to slip this back in knowing there's opposition to it, seemingly hoping none of the rest of us would notice. This isn't the first time you've attempted to do this, so please cut it out. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)