Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:2007 Greensburg tornado/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 16:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tomobe03 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll review this article shortly.--Tomobe03 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
@Tomobe03: Are you still reviewing this? It's been six days. :) EF5 15:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for slow progress. I expect to complete the review and post here on Thursday (i.e. the day after tomorrow). Tomobe03 (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (criterion 1a):

checkY Done.
checkY Fixed. EF5 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ...over 0.5 miles (0.80 km) in diameter..., 0.80 km reads odd to me, I'd expect 800 m instead, but this is just my take and no dealbreaker here. No action required on this one.--Tomobe03 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...(which is the world's largest hand-dug well)... should not be here. Even if it were true, the claim is off-topic and the name is wikilinked to the article where such information would be available. Besides, the Big Well article says it is not the largest.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, removed. EF5 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subsection Greensburg-Trousdale-Lewis, Kansas reads odd as almost everything is written as conditional. For example, instead of The tornado would then move past Fellsburg before almost impacting Trousdale., I'd expect "The tornado then moved past Fellsburg before almost impacting Trousdale." As it stands now, the sentence reads (to me) as if "The tornado normally moves past Fellsburg before almost impacting Trousdale." The same applies to few other sentences in the conditional as well.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, reworded. EF5 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS issues (criterion 1b):

checkY Done, in the "Greensburg supercell development" section. EF5 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:CITELEAD non-contentious summaries presented in the lede need not have inline references. I see no reason to keep the four inline cites supporting the initial paragraph.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Done, removed. EF5 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:GALLERY, images should be distributed through sections if possible and they should not be repetitive. In that respect, one of the photos of the Greensburg High School should be kept and the other left out. I believe the same should apply to having two images of damaged homes (the second image adds very little to understanding of the article). And one more image could be moved from the gallery to the Aftermath section.--Tomobe03 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Just removed gallery, would be too complicating to distribute. Article has enough as-is. EF5 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on 250M economic loss seems to be missing from the prose (and is only found in the infobox). It would be better to include it in the prose as well (and reference there).--Tomobe03 (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkY It's now found in the lede and "Damage" section. EF5 14:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomobe03: How's it look now? EF5 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about potential overuse of fair use images in the article per WP:NFCCP:

  1. The "Trousdale tornado" image seems appropriate for the article on the specific tornado if there is one or another place where that tornado is primarily covered. List of tornadoes by width lists Trousdale tornado and redirects to Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Would it be fair to say that the tornado outbreak page is the primary coverage of Trousdale tornado and the non-free image would be better suited for that (and only that) page, or that the particular Greensburg tornado article section is the primary coverage of the Trousdale tornado and the list and outbreak links should redirect readers to that Greensburg tornado article section?
@Tomobe03: Due to circumstances and length, I'd say that this article has the primary coverage. The reason the "tornadoes by width" redirects there is because nobody's bothered to retarget it. EF5 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What additional infomation is conveyed by the "2007 Greensburg wedge tornado" that the "Two satellite tornadoes" image does not already convey?

Other images have appropriate licences.--Tomobe03 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomobe03: Size of the tornado at its peak intensity, something the satellite image doesn't show. EF5 12:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that sounds reasonable. It seems to me that the nominator has provided sufficient justification for fair use of the images. Tomobe03 (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's copyvio detector reports 66% chance of copyvio (likely copyvio), but the result appears to be a false positive as the tool points to a piece of cited NOAA warning as the source of the purported violation. However, the quoted NOAA warning is clearly specified to be a direct quotation and supported by appropriate references, i.e. there appears to be no real copyvio.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot checks turned out fine.--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since every GA criteria checklist item is ticked, the nomination is successful. Nice article!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quality review! Do you have User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool.js installed? It makes it easy to close nominations. :) EF5 16:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]