Talk:2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado

2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 9, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 November 2023 by reviewer Dan arndt (talk · contribs).

Weather Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ohio Low‑importance

	Ohio portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.OhioWikipedia:WikiProject OhioTemplate:WikiProject OhioOhio articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Copy/Edit requested

I have requested a copy/edit for the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article dispute

United States Man, the article was (1) accepted validly through AfC and (2) is currently requested for a copy/edit. It has a shot at GAN. If you would stop the WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality of merging it, despite opposition, that would be helpful. I suggested you could AfD it, but you said no. So your merge was challenged and you do not wish to AfD it. You can also request a third-party opinion on the subject if you wish. Also, you did not include any proper copyright attribution in any of your merges. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You used the AFC process to make a WP:POINT by taking a published article and in bad faith moving it to draft space and then submitting it to be republished. The tornado is not worthy of a standalone article when no section at all was included in the outbreak article. This subverts common practice among all tornado outbreak articles and breaks consistency here in an apparent mission to hat collect a GAN. United States Man (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing needs to be "consistent". Your entire argument is based on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT ideology. I requested this as a copy/edit as it has a shot at GAN. Per the copy/edit request page, I need to wait until the copy/edit to request the GAN, otherwise I would had already done so. It clearly passes WP:GNG, which was shown in passing AfC. If you do not think it should be an article, AfD it. I reverted you multiple times because the bold merge was challenged (where I suggested AfD), and also copyright violations as your edit summaries did not include attribution links. I was not the only editor to edit the article prior to your bold merge. The merge was challenged, stop merged and AfD if you don't think it should be an article, as I mentioned multiple times. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT that it was merged. United States Man (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you will see this while you are still temporarily blocked, but given this dispute involves only two editors, I requested a third-opinion on our dispute. If a third-opinion editor sees this and has questions, note that the other editor in this dispute is blocked until 30 November and questions for them should be put on hold until after they are unblocked. The third-opinion request was put in since both myself and United States Man were blocked for edit warring and this dispute needs resolved to prevent further edit warring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Hello! I have looked over this dispute, and I am inclined to agree with WeatherWriter. This is a notable topic: there are multiple WP:SIRS available. In particular, [1] and [2] discuss this tornado specifically (not even in the context of the 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak) 20 years after the tornado, so this does not run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Thus, I think keeping this as a full article and adding a {{main article}} tag at 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak#Van Wert–Roselms, Ohio is the best way forward. Courtesy pings to @WeatherWriter and United States Man. House Blaster^talk 07:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my fifth GA review on this article (courtesy ping WeatherWriter)! Feel free to ask any questions or concerns during this review, and it'll take a few days to review this. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A few spots might need clarification; but otherwise looks good!

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~I believe the lead section could be improved and expanded! I'll note this more in-detail in my comments section.~~
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No major concerns; though one sentence might need to be re-worded according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool. How about "Van Wert County EMA Director Rick McCoy was able to give the city a 26-minute" to "Rick McCoy, director of the Van Wert County EMA, managed to give the city a 26-minute"?
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No unstability recently!
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both images are in the public domain!

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No concerns! I'd consider adding alt text to both images, however.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

For lead – I'd remove all citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE; all the information and citations are present further down the article. Adding on to this; the lead should be expanded more!
I expanded the lead some, but it needs a quick copy/edit probably. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion and improvement! I did a small re-write/copyedit to the lead here. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Twin Cinemas and the five buildings in Vision Industrial Park sustained F4 damage" – shouldn't we clarify what really is the Twin Cinemas, like a theatre or something?
Done. Sentence now reads: The Twin Cinemas, a movie theater, and five buildings at an industrial park sustained F4 damage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, due to improvement to the lead (which mentions it as a movie theater), the sentence now reads: The Twin Cinemas and five buildings at an industrial park sustained F4 damage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all mentions of "Vision Industrial Park" should just remain as "industrial park", I think that's okay. As a result, "in Vision Industrial Park sustained F4 damage" could be changed to "at an industrial park sustained F4 damage".
Changed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website name for reference #3 is wrong; it's the National Weather Service, correct?
Fixed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all! I did make a few copyedits on the article; otherwise those are all my comments. Feel free to ping whenever you start or you're finished. Thanks! (Courtesy ping WeatherWriter!) :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: I completed the changes you noted here. I will keep an eye on the page in case you discover any other changes that need to be looked at. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to pass this review, WeatherWriter! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.