Talk:Winterset tornado/GA1

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

@EF5 the first part is posted below. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

@EF5 Would you like me to put this on hold to give you time to work on it? I understand there's quite a bit that needs to be done. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbulb Noob: yes, that would be great. ^EF⁵ 16:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Alright Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll get to this shortly; there was an off-wiki incident and thus I'm not really in the headspace to work on anything right now.^EF₅ 20:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

Note that I'm not completely confident this article is of GA quality; but still giving it a shot regardless. ^EF⁵ 16:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

From a brief glance it seems to need some work, but I don't believe it's far enough from the criteria to warrant a quick fail. I'll go through with it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   For b, and c, see below.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   For a, see below

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues, a few recent edits in preparation for this review but nothing else.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   For b, see below.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Prose

Lead

• The lead could use some expansion, maybe introduce the TORNADO Act, heres a source:
• "hit areas just outside of Winterset, located near Des Moines" --> "tracked through areas just outside the city of Winterset, which is located near Des Moines"

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The tornado leveled or swept away multiple homes, and received an EF4 rating as a result" --> The tornado damaged and destroyed many residences, with one home being leveled at low-end EF4 intensity.

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The tornado was the most powerful to touch down" --> "The tornado was the most intense" or "The tornado was the highest-rated"

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "inflicting $220 million (2022 USD) worth of damages to the areas it moved through." --> "inflicting $220 million (2022 USD) worth of damages along a 70.57 mile (113.57 km) path.

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The tornado first touched down near Macksburg," --> "The tornado first touched down near Macksburg at 4:26 p.m. CDT,"(insert tag to clarify that other times unless noted otherwise are CDT)

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The tornado continued to move through rural areas, eventually causing damage in portions of the Des Moines metro area before lifting." --> "The tornado continued to move through rural areas, eventually causing damage to portions of the Des Moines metropolitan area before dissipating at 6:00 p.m."

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:36, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Meteorological synopsis

• Hyperlink "slight risk outlook".

 Done, linked. ^EF⁵ 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "The next day, the SPC upped their alert level to an enhanced risk, centered in Iowa," --> "The following day, the SPC updated the outlook to include an enhanced risk that was centered in Iowa,"

 Done, reworded. ^EF⁵ 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• "increase in destabilization," --> Needs clarification, destabilization of what?

 Done, linked. ^EF⁵ 13:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Tornado summary

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

Aftermath

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

• --> source 1
• --> source 2
• --> source 3
• --> source 4
• --> source 5
• "A total of seven fatalities were recorded, with two of them being children." --> Goes against the lead and the infobox.

Images

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

References

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

Sources Spotcheck

Will wait until more content is added.

@EF5 and Lightbulb Noob: Where are we at with this review? Is this ready to be promoted? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

The tornado summary, aftermath, images, references, and sources spotcheck all needs to be finished. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Doing it now. ^EF₅ 15:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - honestly not sure why this event even needs a page in the first place. ^EF₅ 13:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't you create it lol Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I did lol, but re-looking nothing shows it would need to be split out. ^EF₅ 13:06, 19 May 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.