Talk:2012 Center Point–Clay tornado

2012 Center Point–Clay 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 8, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes 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.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

GA Review

Passed. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 22:50, 8 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:2012 Center Point–Clay tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review! This is my third GA review and this article is weather-related, so I'm a bit comfortable reviewing this since I'm experienced in the weather-related area. Comments to come in the next few days. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 20:29, 4 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:
~~Definitely a few areas where there's some tiny typos or grammar mistakes! I'll provide suggestions on those in my comments.~~

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~My only issue is that I think the lead section could be expanded a little more!~~
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:
~~Some content wasn't verified by the provided sources. I'll note more of this in my comments.~~

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
~~I think a few parts could be re-worded according to Earwig's Copyvio Tool. I'll provide suggestions on re-wording those in my comments, but feel free to re-word it yourself!~~
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 concerns!
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; no issues!

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Why not consider adding alt text to the images?
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Good work on the article! Comments follow below. :)

Spotchecks

152 mph winds in the infobox with the NWS source not verifying it? Come on! I'm seeing 150mph for the provided NWS source; this also happens in the article's tornado summary; "with the worst damage being rated EF3 with winds estimated at 152 miles per hour (245 km/h)"!
This can be found on the map. There is a damage point which states 152 mph winds. For the ease of finding it, I screenshotted it and put it on the Commons. File:2012 Center Point 152 mph wind.png. This is actually a time where NWS says 150 and 152 on the same webpage, which is sort of funny but confusing. We can fix that if needed, or put a note about the discrepancy between NWS (on the same webpage no less). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a note about the discrepancy would be okay, considering the confusion! ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 00:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"where several homes and businesses were damaged or partially destroyed" – the provided source doesn't verify the buildings being "partially destroyed", but rather the buildings sustaining "roof and wall damage".
Fixed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"as a warehouse sustained severe roof damage and some exterior wall collapse" – provided NWS source doesn't verify the warehouse damage.
NWS source's map shows the warehouse and says it was a warehouse with "collapse of other non-bearing exterior walls" at 114 mph. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the tornado shrank to a width of 600 yards (550 m)" – source for the shrunken width, or at least the width for the tornado before it shrank?
"Shrank" removed - Fixed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Numerous homes in the neighborhood sustained major to minor damage." – NWS source doesn't state "major" damage being sustained to homes, instead "moderate" roof damage.
Major --> Moderate - Fixed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensing misplaced references throughout these issues; though I could be wrong!

Prose, Manual of Style

Why not expand the lead a little bit, due to the presence of information in the rest of the article?
I will think on how to expand it a little later tonight. If you have any suggestions though, I would love to hear them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead has been expanded some. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the lead: the citations at the end of the lead section should be removed since the information is present further down the article. However, I don't think the citations for the first sentence of the lead should be removed since the information mainly doesn't repeat further down in the article (including the information regarding the commonly-known name of the tornado, the metropolitan area that it struck and what portion of the area was damaged, etc.). This is in regards to MOS:LEADCITE.
Extra refs removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link cold front in the meteorological synopsis section.
Linked! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"for significant tornadoes; EF2-EF5 intensity" – why not try "for significant, EF2-EF5 intensity tornadoes"?
Changed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The school buildings were later bulldozed due to the tornado's damage." – how about "demolished" instead of "bulldozed"?
Changed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-wording

Per Earwig's Copyvio Detector, it does highlight a few places where I feel like they could be re-worded a bit. Just a few!

"northeast of Tarrant, where several homes and businesses were damaged" – re-word to "northeast of Tarrant, first causing damage to roofs and walls in several homes and businesses".
Fixed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"businesses were heavily damaged or destroyed." – re-word to "businesses sustained heavy damage or were destroyed."
Fixed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"two homes were completely destroyed" – re-word to "two homes were demolished".
Fixed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! Feel free to ping me when finished or if you've got any questions or concerns. :) (courtesy ping WeatherWriter!) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 03:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Tails Wx! I do not have much time to work on Wikipedia until the 7th. I will begin working to fix any issues at that point. Would you like a courtesy ping for when I get started on the 7th or just a ping when I am finished (excluding the possibility of a question obviously)? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:37, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter, of course! Feel free to ping me when you get started (I have the article on my watchlist as well!) and whenever you're complete with my comments above. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 19:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Tails Wx - I have finished or responded to every comment made. The lead still needs to work, which I will think on tonight. But, I wanted to go ahead and drop a courtesy ping since I'm back and worked on it. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WeatherWriter! Aside from the lead expansion issue, I have no concerns. I'll promote this once the lead is expanded, preferably another two or three sentences. :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 00:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: I have expanded the lead a little bit and I added a note for the wind speed. The wording for the note is a little awkward to me though, so if it seems awkward to you as well, feel free to re-write it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WeatherWriter! I've made a minor change to the note here. Happy to promote this to a GA! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 22:44, 8 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.