Talk:Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

• 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)

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 ([1]) 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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)

  Looks good, I'm going to remove the now-unneeded Oklahoma cite. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• 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)

  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)

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.