Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2023	Good article nominee	Listed
May 2, 2024	Peer review	Not reviewed
July 4, 2024	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

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.

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

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

B-Class

Just wanting to log here that Tails Wx agreed this was B-class worthy after I asked for a 2nd-editor evaluation of the article.[1][2] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy Check Complete

As of August 10, 2023, the article is fully sourced and checking the sources combined with off-Wiki checks confirmed the material in the article is accurate. Here is a perm link to the article when this check occurred. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2023 (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:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to WeatherWriter and anyone else who may have worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2023 (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.	After some minor tweaks, pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well referenced after source review. Pass.
	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).	What are the cases for tornadoproject.com and tornadotalk.com being reliable sources? I can't find strong indications that they are. Issue addressed. For ("official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950") at the NWS Norman web link, that source implies it only covers Oklahoma. I'm sure the information is correct, but please find a different source that talks about tornado record-keeping in general, and preferably add an archive link as well. Does the WaPo source have a known author? Please add any other information you have to the citation. Issues addressed, pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, no issues here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Found a few other contemporary newspaper articles, but nothing noteworthy in them that should be added. Pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no issues of overdetail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, not a problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Some recent category changes, but no issues, pass.
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.	US government employee, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Assuming no news photos are copyright-free for a 1945 event - adequately illustrated, captions are good. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

GA Review Answers

Answers for question in 2b: (Tornado Talk and Tornado Project) — So the Tornado Project should be reliable for information, since the National Weather Service has linked to it as an “Informative Website” for “More Tornado Information” on this page. A quick scroll of the page shows it as one of two non-government sources linked to, with the other being the University of Oklahoma, which is known for meteorology. Tornado expert Thomas P. Grazulis is also the director of the project. Now Tornado Talk is an odd one. As far as I’m aware, there hasn’t been any discussion to assess whether it is a reliable source or not. It appears to be a news outlet-style history group for tornadoes. While typing this up, I clicked one of their most recent publications ([3]) and it seems to be a fairly detailed assessment of a tornado outbreak. I’m not sure how to categorize it since it isn’t a true media outlet or a published research article and there hasn’t been a discussion on WP:RSN about it, but I lean more on the side of it being a reliable source, given their most recent publications (2 more after the one linked above) seem to be fairly well detailed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:46, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the Tornado Project seems fine with that backing and expertise. For Tornado Talk, since it's only used once and is only one of several citations for the information given, the simplest solution is just to remove it entirely. Thanks for checking them out. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811: It has been removed. I’ll keep an eye out for any additional questions you have and feel free to ping me anytime. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answer for question #2 in 2b: (official rating question) — Took a while, since I didn't want to link another NWS office (they all speak for NWS in general), but I got lucky and found a news outlet in Virginia directly stating the phrase. It is now cited in the article, with an archived link as requested. That should cover it, but I can find more sources if needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I'm going to remove the now-unneeded Oklahoma cite. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Answer for question #3 in 2b: (WaPo article) — So Ganesha811, that is actually a scanned snippet of a physical newspaper article/section, put out by WaPo on February 13, 1945. The snippet, hosted by ProQuest, doesn't include an author and just says it is by WaPo. Not sure what to do in this case. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not available, nothing we can do! I don't have access to the WaPo archives to see if there's anything there, but both WaPo and Proquest are highly reliable, so it's not a dealbreaker. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2023 (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.