Jump to content

Talk:2015 Garland tornado/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:45, 15 October 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: IntentionallyDense (talk · contribs) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not super experienced in this topic but I'll do this review soon! IntentionallyDense (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See comment below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2b. 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). This was a bitch to verify but most is verified pending the one issue below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2c. it contains no original research. per above IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. See comments below. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Overall assessment. I'm going to place this on hold until the nominator has time to get back tome on my feedback. Overall really good article and I think any of the prose issues I found arise from the fact that it seems (at least in my opinion) hard to write about something so repetitive (as in tornado goes through destroys houses, rinse and repeat) without the whole article sounding repetitive. I'm excited to see what you can do with my feedback. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been fixed! I'm passing this one! IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The tornado initially touched down at 6:46 p.m. CST on East Tripp Road north of US 80 on the west of Sunnyvale in Dallas County. It was initially at EF0 strength and minor roof damage was inflicted on two homes and a power pole was knocked down at the touchdown point. I'm not seeing this in ref 4. Could you maybe provide me with a quote? I may be navigating the website wrong or something. I see the map but it's not giving me specific times just the damage and the road names. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be reasonable to spell out It was initially at EF0 strength in full and wikilink it the first time it's used in text so that newbies (like me) know what EF means? 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
That’s fair. It does say it in the info box but the MOS does technically say acronyms should be spelt out in full the first time they are used. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were few damage indicators in this area and an EF0 rating was given along this portion of the track. What damage indicators? (are they relevant?) Also could you specify what you mean by this area/track (something like "while moving from point A to point B"). 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • So a damage indicator is anything that has sustained damage. So for example, if a home is hit hard and is completely destroyed, it is a damage indicator that the tornado was at EF3 (or more) intensity in that area. I'll clarify it though in the article, which I have done. SirMemeGod  13:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a question since I don't know much about the topic but is the EF rating determined based on how much damage it does? I'm just asking since your comment At least one home had a pickup truck thrown into it and some homes were partially swept away as well, although they were either unanchored or poorly anchored to their foundations, precluding a higher rating makes it sound that way. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is. You can technically have a 700 mile-per-hour tornado (which isn't even really possible) that is extremely violent, but if all it hits is grass, it could get a low rating. Vice-versa, aswell. SirMemeGod  13:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nine people, including a one-year-old, were killed in this area.[5][3][7][8][9] I'd suggest using bundled refs for this sentence but that's more of a nitpick (I'd do it myself but I don't know how although I'm sure it's not hard). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supercell that produced this EF4 tornado had previously produced an EF3 tornado that injured 46 people in the Ovilla and Red Oak areas... After the violent tornado had lifted, the same storm produced an EF2 tornado that killed two people and injured 119 others in and around Copeville. After producing an EF1 tornado near Farmersville, the storm would produce one final EF1 tornado that killed an infant and injured two other people, before weakening. Could I get dates for those other tornados just so that the timeline is a bit clearer? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'll get to it momentarily.
@IntentionallyDense: I believe I've addressed almost everything. :) SirMemeGod  13:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll take one last look later today (i’m currently on my phone and hate doing wikipedia stuff on my phone) before making my final decision. Thanks for being patient with me and helping me navigate this unfamiliar topic! i had lots of fun doing this review. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! It's always great to see people interested in weather. :) SirMemeGod  15:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. I'm going to go ahead and pass this since the asking for dates for the other tornados isn't a big enough deal to hold back this article from GA status just more of a soft recomendation :) IntentionallyDense (talk) 17:43, 15 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Garland_tornado/GA1&oldid=1251342256"