Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 27 December 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.

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

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Links

Prose

Lede

second-deadliest worldwide would move through - can we not use "would". It did happen. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Removed. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an infobox with five images before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See 2007 Greensburg tornado and 2011 Joplin tornado. Heck, World War I has six! E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, there's zero chance I would look up the Great War. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this is notable specifically for the death count. Maybe we should state what it is, rather than give a rounded figure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added exact casualty amount.. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado would then move - again with "would". Id go through an reword to avoid it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, changed "would move" to "moved". E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite notes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Removed note. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 of whom perished immediately and another five in the days to come - seems like excessive detail for lede. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Removed. E_F⁵ 23:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General

Why do we have both Tri-State tornado outbreak and 1925 Tri-State tornado? I'm a bit confused how these aren't the same topic. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most "outbreaks" are different than a tornado. See 2011 Super Outbreak (2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell tornado), Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024 (2024 Elkhorn-Blair tornado) and several others. Feel free to read Tornado outbreak for more in-depth info. :) E_F⁵ 16:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an {{about}} at the top of the page would make sense. The general reader isn't going to know this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. E_F⁵ 17:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This initiated a "Colorado low" cyclogenesis - who said this quote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done For some reason it was in quotations. E_F⁵ 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological synopsis - I'm a bit worried that this (reasonably large) section is fully cited to one source. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no issue with that. E_F⁵ 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ear this "sweet spot" - who said this quote? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've removed not only the quote but the entire sentence, as it was worded badly. E_F⁵ 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Within a matter of minutes, two people were killed and 90% of the town was leveled. - presumably 90% is an estimate, or something that someone said? I doubt you could get an exact figure. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added "estimated". E_F⁵ 16:55, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to the northeast at an average speed of 62 mph (100 km/h) (and up to 73 mph (117 km/h)), the tornado cut a swath almost 1 mi (1.6 km) - there needs to be some consistency of units, sometimes you use mph, but then km/h, why not mp/h or kmh? You use mi and km here, but also earlier you use "miles". Just needs to be consistent. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. It's for international units so both readers who use the metric and imperial system can understand. E_F⁵ 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean you use both "mi" and then "miles". You also use mph but not the associated kmph etc. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:

Done, I'll double check but I believe that's everything you've brought up thus far. :) E_F⁵ 16:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The official number of injured was a staggering 623 - staggering?!? Is that a quote or just editorialising? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Not sure why that was added. E_F⁵ 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty-six - never start a sentence with a number, regardless of if it's numerical or spelt out. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, reworded to include it later in the sentence. E_F⁵ 17:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

105 were injured, five - MOS:NUM - use consistent types of digit. Use numbers or spelt out words when comparing numbers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, changed the "five" to a number. E_F⁵ 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

while injuring a staggering - same as before. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Same as above, not sure why it was worded that way. E_F⁵ 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the tornado charged across Hamilton County south of McLeansboro, the tornado reached its greatest width at 1.5 miles (2,400 m). Dozens of farms, homes, schools and churches were swept away, 28 people were killed, and nine more of those injured later died. - something is broken here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Changed to "mortally wounded" for the first, and "later died of their injuries" in the second. E_F⁵ 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I actually meant the formatting. I've made the change for you Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In aftermath, you have a single subsection, I'm not sure why.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, subsectioned "Legacy" to compensate. E_F⁵ 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"amorphous rolling fog" or "boiling clouds on the ground", - when you state a quote, you really should put the source where it comes from immediately afterwards (at the end of the sentence), so we aren't confused as to where it came from. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, added Washington Post source directly after the ",". E_F⁵ 17:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although, this photograph is of the 1979 Wichita Falls F4 tornado and not the 1925 Tri-State tornado. - this is uncited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per overwhelming community consensus above, it should remain that way unless a source is found. I'm fine with removing the sentence if it conflicts with the review. E_F⁵ 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we should have anything uncited that isn't a WP:BLUE situation in a GA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per consensus, WP:IAR was invoked. This was specifically done based on a consensus. Personally, that single sentence should not be enough to not pass this article, as a discussion with several editors were in complete consensus to “ignore all rules” to add that sentence. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point me to the discussion? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#This image shown here is photoshopped and not the real tri state tornado is the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:07, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, don't worry about this not making GA status because of this - it won't make any difference. I just wonder if we even need to mention the photograph at all if no sources bother to contradict it, and it's clearly not true. Maybe a better solution is to have the whole claim as a note, rather than prose. I don't see a primary source (in the context of substantiating a claim made by the subject) to be particularly sufficient to prove what he's said anyway. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading should be a level two header. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. E_F⁵ 17:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review meta comments

I'll begin the review as soon as I can! If you fancy returning the favour, I have a list of nominations for review at WP:GAN and WP:FAC, respectively. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these if you get time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: It's been nine days (minus Christmas, since I know people are usually off then), are you still reviewing? E_F⁵ 15:45, 27 December 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.