This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Chicago Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance).

This review is transcluded from Talk:1967 Belvidere tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Departure– (talk · contribs) 19:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this.

• Why is the damage total in the infobox in 1993 USD, and not 1967? Also, when is the "$47,887,000 adjusted" for? Somewhere in the article, you should have a note saying "All damage totals are in YYYY United States dollars", it's helpful.
  • This is because the total comes from Thomas P. Grazulis' book Significant Tornadoes, 1680-1991; published in 1993. As a subject matter expert for tornado history he is seen as a generally reliable source. I'll clarify this in the article. Departure– (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• You should also have a note that all times are in CDT, since you use p.m. later in the article
  • Added a note.
• The infobox is the only place that specifies indirect fatalities, while the lead just says "28 deaths" total. I suggest either explaining indirect deaths, or changing the infobox
  • Added a note, and clarified in the lede.
• You mention the Fujita scale once in the infobox, and one of the images has a map of F4, but otherwise the article doesn't say what the Fujita scale is, why it's relevant, how it's determined, or when it was applied to this tornado.
  • For the record, I'm confident the F4 map is a copyright violation but I don't want to open a discussion as other weather-space editors are confident it isn't. @Hurricanehink: Would the best course be to just remove it for now? Departure– (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, you can remove it, but you still need to mention how/when the tornado was rated an F4. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      This one was a lot harder as tornadoes 1950-1971 are not mentioned at Fujita scale oddly, but I managed to explain the rating to my own satisfaction here; please advise. Departure– (talk) 01:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "buses. Buses" - can you find a way to avoid having these words back to back in the 2nd to 3rd sentences?
  • Addressed. Departure– (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "hundreds of homes suffered major damage" - can you provide a more exact number? The lead is on the short side, so more info here would be fine.
  • I don't believe that the source gave a specific number, nor could I find an exact number in any reliable source I found when I made this article, though I'll check again tomorrow morning. Departure– (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is in the article and I didn't see it before; there is one source with a concrete number which I've moved further up. However, is a specific figure needed in the lede? Departure– (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like the Tornado outbreak of April 21, 1967 should be linked earlier, that this was part of a larger outbreak. That almost seems like an afterthought in the lead. Also...

• "The tornado was one of three F4 tornadoes in Illinois during the 1967 Oak Lawn tornado outbreak" - this is unsourced in the article

• • • Both addressed: link to the outbreak added in the Background section; please review. Note also the target changed. Departure– (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• You mention "500mb shortwave trough" and "250mb" without ever explaining what mb is, linking it, or its relevance.
  • Removed 500mb, further explained 250 millibars; please review. Departure– (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "low to mid 70s and dew points in the low 60s Fahrenheit." - not to be picky, but shouldn't this also be in Celsius?
  • Dew points given in Fahrenheit is typical of tornado articles, but I'll check other more comprehensive articles for whether or not Celsius conversions are needed. Departure– (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This wasn't dew points (my bad), but I've replaced it with a cvt range; please review. Departure– (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason for the single usage of "120 knots"? Typically, weather articles don't use knots, as that's more used for the scientific community, whereas Wikipedia articles need to be readable to everyone, without unexplained/unlinked jargon
  • Knots is given in the source, and there's already a convert tag next to the figure, so I don't necessarily see the problem here. Departure– (talk) 01:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "A child of a worker at the assembly plant recounts that in advance of the expected severe weather, the Belvidere Assembly Plant showed their workers a movie about tornado preparedness." - this sentence seems odd and could be reworded. The part "child of a worker at the assembly plant..." it's a lot to start off a sentence, so I miss the impact of what you're trying to do here.
  • This is a bit of an attribution problem, as one of the best sources and the one used here is interviews of survivors from well after the event. I don't know if a first-hand source exists for this claim. However, older editorial standards would likely drop that opening qualifying clause. What do you think? Departure– (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the interim, I've removed the long-winded attribution. Departure– (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appreciated. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "moving towards Belvidere.[6] As the tornado approached Belvidere, it passed by the Belvidere Assembly Plant" - can you avoid one of the usages of "Belvidere" here?
  • Addressed. Departure– (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "His vehicle ended up in a ditch, but he continued towards the school while shouting" - on foot I'm guessing?
  • Addressed. Departure– (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• multiple students were "flung like leaves" into an open field - why the quote? Who said this? All quotes need to have some kind of attribution. Same thing with:

• where a "makeshift morgue" had been established for the dead

• • • Addressed the former. Departure– (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Whalen recalls seeing - it took me several moments to realize who Whalen was. A refresher would be helpful
  • Rearranged the sentence--please review. Departure– (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps "Police captain Whalen" instead? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addressed per your suggestion. Departure– (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What is a "tornado family"?
  • Explained in the prose. Departure– (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like the tornado's disputed nature (single versus tornado family) should be in the lead.
  • Added to the lede. Departure– (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the difference between "Response" and "Aftermath" sections?
  • These probably could be merged, so I have done so. Departure– (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Illinois National Guard was deployed to the city, and Governor of Illinois Otto Kerner Jr. would tour damage across Belvidere on April 22. - why the "would" tense, after using "was deployed" previously? The verbiage should be the same, or have two separate sentences.
  • Tense changed. Departure– (talk) 14:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In 2011, after hearing of the short warning time following the tornado in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, Mike Doyle wrote that the Belvidere tornado had no warning at all. The first tornado warning for Boone County hadn't been issued until 4:03 p.m., 13 minutes after the tornado struck Belvidere; by that point, it had exited Boone County entirely. - I have no idea why part of this is "Aftermath" and not summary or background. Also who is Mike Doyle?
  • Addressed by merging all Doyle content into one paragraph--please review. Departure– (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In 2007, a memorial ceremony was held at Belvidere High School for the 50th anniversary of the tornado. - 40th, not 50th anniversary
  • Done. Departure– (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Per WP:MEMORIAL, you shouldn't have the list of names of people killed by the tornado. Also, "fatalities" should be under some kind of impact section, which I realize is missing.
  • Not sure how an Impact section would be any different from the sections given (though please feel free to suggest something). Removed the table. Departure– (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, maybe just include under "tornado summary" then? That seems to be where the bulk of the info on damage is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      When I wrote this article, I was going off of the format of newer articles, such as 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado, which forgo an "Impact" subheader altogether. Is it preferable to have one? How would that flow with the existing prose in the summary section? Departure– (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm most familiar with the Greensburg tornado, which has an impact section, but the casualties are part of the aftermath. So there are options. Whatever you think works best. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      I think the section is fine as is. While it might be nice to split impacts from the tornado's chronology, in order to keep a better focus on each, I also feel that's just going to mean that the mechanism would also come before impacts, and the distance in prose between the tornado hitting some place and the specific impacts there would be a little too big for comfort. Departure– (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      • That works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the See also links List of schools struck by tornadoes, is there a need to link the 1990 Plainfield tornado which also affected a school?
  • I feel it's helpful for navigation, as they both happened in northern Illinois and lacked proper advance warnings. Departure– (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In all, the article is in pretty good shape, but a few things stand out and need fixing. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink I plan to attend to this nomination within the next few days. Thank you! Departure– (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed a few; more coming shortly. Departure– (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hurricanehink: I believe I've addressed everything to this point. Departure– (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]