![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I rewrote this page, adding polish and some references. My rewrite now sounds much like (but perhaps not too much like?) the Tornado Project web reference I added. This isn't surprising, since that page is one of the few resources available discussing the Woodward event and I was quite familiar with it.
The original author of the Wikipedia article obviously used it as reference material. Is the current article different enough from the original to qualify as a "fair use" of the material? I think so, but am not completely comfortable. Any opinions are welcome.
Brian Rock 01:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ok, Lou I. Thanks.
Brian Rock 23:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I recently found a letter my mother-in-law wrote describing her experience of the Woodward tornado. You can find it at: http://www.ilind.net/gallery_old/tornado_ltr/
I live in this neck of the woods, and my understanding has always been that the tornado passed well south of Shattuck (6 miles or so), which, if you look at the map and figure the likely path from Higgins to Woodward makes a good deal of sense. I suspect the deaths in Shattuck-Gage-Fargo to have been "near" those towns, not in them, as they are north of that line by a fair bit. In fact, the NWS page referenced shows the towns were not hit, and the storm passed SSE of them. As such, I modified the article to reflect that. Ashtur 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Added year per Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado's naming convention. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Total damage estimates were $747,850,050-$173,489,564
It's proper usage to start with the lower number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.197.76 ( talk) 02:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether or not many people are watching this talk page, but it appears that the NWS WFO in Norman has a good source here: [1]. Dustin (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Somebody reverted my edit because -they- decided it wasn't significant enough. The story has made many newspapers and has appeared on TV, this after some 50 years of the event. That's significant. Unless you can successfully argue otherwise, I'm going to revert it back soon. PhilOSophocle ( talk) 23:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1947 Glazier–Higgins–Woodward tornadoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
This page, as well as two articles on the NWS website; https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-19470409-summary and https://www.weather.gov/oun/events-19470409 all have a different death toll for the event. For here it stands at greater than 181. On these two articles, it stands at 116 and 169. Why the inconsistency, and why does this article feature the highest death toll, when it's common practice to take a middle ground? AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)