Talk:November 2008 Carolinas tornado outbreak

Notability

8 overall tornadoes (based on final count) does not warrant an article IMO with only 2 deaths. If one of the tornadoes had a much higher death toll I'd say keep, but right now I recommend moving this back to Tornadoes of 2008. (At the same time, the tornado chart should be put in the list for all of November 2008, or due to overall inactivity all of October to December 2008 could go into a single sub-article). This is just my opinion.

If this is kept, then articles should be created for all of the following in 2008 which had equal or greater notability: February 16-18, April 3-4, April 8-11, July 7-11 and the Fay, Gustav and Ike outbreaks at least. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

That was my overall idea. For all the outbreaks listed in the template, I think an article for them would be helpful. This article was just a way to get started. I'm not used to this type of article so I needed to work on a small outbreak that had some notability to get the hang of the format. Cyclonebiskit 13:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:November 15, 2008 Carolinas tornado outbreak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria assessment

1. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

   • 

2. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

   • 

3. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

   • 

4. The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

   • 

5. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

   • 

I am somewhat concerned by the merge banner. If it is to go ahead to GA review then that should probably be removed as no consensus appears to have emerged. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the banner since it's the notability of the article isn't much of an issue anymore. Cyclonebiskit 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • The prose is fine but the bulk of the article is a list in table form. Have you considered making it into a list which could even be put forward to featured list status? More at WP:Lists Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   The article is in the standard WP:SEVERE format for an outbreak article. Cyclonebiskit 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Right having looked at the GA class articles in this category I see most have more sections of prose, also an Aftermath and often a Historical perspective section. I would recommend less detail in the list and more in the prose. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   I'm not sure about a historical perspective on this outbreak but I've found a bunch of information on aftermath and added it. I hope it's up to par now. Cyclonebiskit 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

   Fine, that is much better. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (MoS):

   • See above Jezhotwells (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • OK

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • OK

   c (OR):

   • OK

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • please see section above, #1 a Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (focused):

   • the article is focussed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • conforms to WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • no eviodemce of edit warring. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • image correctly tagged Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • used appropriately with caption Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • Please consider the point raised in # 1 a Jezhotwells (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, that's good. I am happy to pass the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)