Talk:1878 Wallingford tornado/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello. I will be doing a second review of this article. Overall, the article looks very good. I have the following comments:

• "behind the Worcester tornado of 1953" - after the Worcester tornado
• "The storm system which eventually produced the destructive Wallingford tornado produced damaging winds and at least one tornado far before it reached the doomed town." - try to vary wording so that you are not using "produced" twice in the same sentence.
• "The next path of damage, possibly from another tornado, was further north along the Shepaug River, but still traveling southeast, for three miles before disappearing again." - could be worded more clearly - if it was another storm it would not "still" be traveling. And the "for three miles" is awkward here. Just needs rewording.
• "a black, rolling funnel cloud, with clouds blowing in from all directions. This cloud passed directly over Cheshire," - using the word "cloud" three times so close together. Can you reword it to avoid that, or think of alternatives words?
• PM - per WP:MoS this should "end with dotted or undotted lower-case a.m. or p.m., or am or pm, which are spaced (2:30 p.m. or 2:30 pm, not 2:30p.m. or 2:30pm)"
• Per Overlinking and underlinking, common words should not be wikilinked. Probably words like "Catholic" and "church", also "Connecticut" in the lead, as the town already says Connecticut. Also, you wikilink Connecticut again under "Aftermath". Watch for unnecessary or repeated wikilinking.
• "$150,000 ($2.9 million 2007 USD)" - I am not clear here. What is the first $ that is not wikilinked? And why is 2007 included in the wikilink?
• In the references, none of the titles should be in all caps. They should use sentence capitalization.
• All the references should have publishers. There are two that do not.
• You should remove periods from the captions, as the captions are not complete sentences.

That's it for now. These should be easy to fix. I may add a additional comments if I see anything more. It is a nice, interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Done except for one. The $150,000 figure is from 1878, which is $2.9 million when adjusted to present-day dollars (actually, with the inflation since I wrote the article, its up to 3.2 million. What a world we live in!). I don't know how to make is clearer in the article without sounding cumbersome.-RunningOnBrains 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I have seen $ linked to USD to clarify it is the U.S. dollar, not Canadian etc., but never this way of formatting. Have you seen it other places? Perhaps you could just explain in words, without link, that as of 2007, this amount would equal $xxx.

Otherwise, at first glance, the article looks great. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I reworded so I didn't have to use that notation.  Done-RunningOnBrains 01:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment - just one more question. You say, "The brand-new brick high school building was almost completely destroyed, but there were no deaths there since school was not in session." However the source you give doesn't say anything about whether the school was in session or not (that I could find, at least), but it does say elsewhere in the article that "thirty-four persons lost their lives, twenty-eight more were severely injured." Have you given the total number of dead and injured in your article? —Mattisse (Talk) 01:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a stupid assumption. Removed. Also, added the injury toll (it's actually 70, I assume that it includes minor injuries) -RunningOnBrains 01:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): No obvious MoS violations

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers available information on subject b (focused): Remains focused on article topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very nice job! —Mattisse (Talk) 02:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)