Talk:Tornado myths/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
There are two major problems with this article reaching GA, in my opinion, which stand out after a cursory overview. The article does have an appropriate amount of references, but the references are in a jumble of different styles. Fix this issue by adding publisher information, date of publishing, and author information all in the same format through your references. The lead is way too short, and does not act as a summary of the article below. I'll be nice and place the article on hold for a week to see if the necessary changes can be made. In the meantime, I'll give the article a more thorough look, though the previous GA review appears to have done a thorough job already. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC) :Three days left. I haven't seen any movement on these issues yet, and I don't plan on doing a more thorough review until they're dealt with. If they are, and there are more issues found, I'll extend the clock another week. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per our discussion your talk page, you have another week. For clarification purposes, the lead should be a full summary of the content below. It shouldn't be a teaser. Since you have 13-14 sections, I would think one line summarizing each section within the lead for each section would be sufficient. For clarification purposes, the references need to be done in a similar format to one another, and placed within one unified reference section. In other words, the book references need to be placed in a ref format similar to cite book, where all relevant information, including ISBN number, year of publishing, title, etcetera, are included. Web references should have equally complete information (add info to refs 10 and 12). The information within the book refs should be at least as complete as your web references. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*In the history section, is all that information prior to reference 1 covered by reference 1? If so, I suggest merging the information into larger paragraphs, and referencing each paragraph with ref 1. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *The safest location in a building section needs to be redone. You initially appear to prove that the east to northeast side of the building is the safest, since tornadoes normally approach from the southwest, before ultimately refuting it. Since this article is about myths, the information which proves the myth needs to at least be reworded, if not removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *It looks like you prove the tornado size relation to strength is correct and not a myth. A total of 18 out over 20,000 F1 tornadoes are wide? I would include stats concerning the narrowness of some of the F5s, which would help prove your point. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC) *How does the urban heat island make an area less prone to tornadoes? It is stated within the article, and if true, needs to be expanded upon. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC) *Remove date wikilinks from the article, which are within the reference section. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC) *It would be good to have an image of a tornado in the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC) *Now that the lead is expanded, we have new issues. Since there should be no unique information in the lead that isn't covered in the article below, we have problems in the lead with comments about media sensationalism which do not appear in the article below. If the information isn't in the article below, it should not be uniquely in the lead. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC) *Occurrences of the word many in the lead need to be changed, to either people or some. We have no evidence to believe most of the population believes anything stated below within the article. If any of the references do state this, the lines with the word many need references themselves. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to include information from the waterspout article into your tornadoes in winter section. It would help fill it out, because it's quite short (likely too stubby) for the time being. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Reference issues remain with your web references. Some have publishing dates/years, while others don't. This needs to be resolved by adding the remainder of the publishing years/dates. I've had a few GANs of my own held up by this type of concern.

The new section has to be fleshed out some (2 or 3 more lines). It can't be a stub. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three days left. The reference issue is far from being resolved. The lead is improved, but it still doesn't cover all the points made in the content below. I don't care whether it is 13-14 lines or not. You need to at least briefly mention all the content which is below, somehow, and right now the lead is still not accomplishing this task. Other issues not struck out already still need to be resolved as well. You have until June 30 to make the improvements still necessary. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the issues. You have made reasonable progress so far. I'll give you until July 6. Criteria 2a and 6 of the GA standard still need to be resolved. I've placed a second opinion option within the GAN template, in case I am being too picky. That's not my history when it comes to reviewing GAN articles, but per your comments on my talk page, I felt it wouldn't hurt to get a second opinion. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other improvements prior to FAC

This is a good article worthy of an encyclopedia, so I would encourage further improvements before submitting the article to FAC. The biggest remaining issue is that the article is quite US-centric regarding its information. Prior to FACing, you're going to need to substitute some of your US information for more international information, to snuff out this geographically-centered problem. I debated whether or not to mention this POV issue in GAN, and figured it would be best handled prior to FAC, figuring you were eventually going to try improving it further anyhow. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]