Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 August 2024 [1].

2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado

edit
Nominator(s): The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the strongest tornado to occur during 2022. Injuries, a death, and $17 million in damages were left in the aftermath of this deadly and violent tornado.

This article passed a GA review back in late-June 2024, with only a small amount of sentence/grammatical changes and no changes or issues with the content. This is my second ever FAC, with my first one (for a different article) failing surprsingly due to a split support/oppose consensus. Hopefully this one holds up to FA standards and we don’t end up with another split support/oppose consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Photo_of_the_2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado.png: the unique historic images tag is intended for situations where the image itself, rather than what is pictured, is the subject of commentary - that doesn't appear to be the case here. The hidden comment on the image is also confusing, since AFAIK this is a perennially rejected proposal and not a NFC requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like something that needs to be brought up at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, given it passed GA with it being present. For the hidden comment, I presume you mean in regards to the caption: "A photograph of the tornado by Jason Manchester<!--Name should be kept due to it being non-free image.-->" That comment was just associated with "Jason Manchester" being kept in the caption, given it is a non-free image. WP:Weather has very few non-free images and as far as I think, that is the standard practice for them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Quick question Nikkimaria, what part of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals are you referencing? From what I can tell, the only image-related item on the list is in regards to non-commercial images (i.e. Created Commons By-NC) licensed images. The image in question isn't a CC-related license, so I'm not sure what part of WP:PEREN you are referencing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image-related issue discussed above by Nikkimaria has been fixed, with the complete removal of the NFC. I do not agree with this change. Nikkimaria, given this issue has been fixed, would you feel comfortable supporting this for FA? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dylan620

edit

Always glad to see weather-related topics up for consideration at featured processes; if you're at all interested, I have a tropical cyclone FLC that could use some feedback. I've done a read-through of this article and I have the following comments regarding prose:

  • a large and violent EF4 tornado struck – The rating can probably be removed from this sentence, as the very next one states that the tornado was rated EF4 on account of the severest damage it caused.
  • with dew points in the mid-60s – Missing a unit.
  • The second half of §Meteorological_synopsis implies that the tornadic supercell was the only one to blow up in intensity, whereas the cited source states a few discrete supercell thunderstorms became exceptionally strong. I'm also not sure if "eventually" needs to be used in two consecutive sentences. The final decision is yours, obviously, but I'd like to suggest the following as a potential way of rephrasing this portion:
    • As the QLCS was moving across Georgia, a few discrete supercells formed and became particularly robust, owing to strong wind shear and storm relative helicity values exceeding 300 m2/s2. One of these supercells eventually produced the Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.
  • evidence to support a rating above EF4 – considering there is only one higher, I wonder if "a rating above EF4" should be replaced with "an EF5 rating".
  • Around the golf course, the tornado reportedly changed the landscape – This feels pretty vague. The relevant anecdote from the cited source describes a hole being put in the ground by the tornado, so I'd maybe say something about that instead. As it is, this sentence feels redundant to the earlier mention of significant tree damage at the golf course.
  • which prohibited people from traveling around the area to prevent trespassing in the tornado disaster area – The two parts of this clause seem to mean the same thing, and I'd recommend removing one of them. It reads a little clunky as is.

That's it, methinks. The article is a short but great read overall, and I will probably support once the above items are addressed. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes suggested above. I appreciate you taking the time to review the article! Is there anything else you would like to comment about, or would you feel good about supporting this for FA? Courtesy ping: @Dylan620:. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: One last bit: upon double-checking the source, I suggest replacing "traveling and trespassing around" with "trespassing on", since the source doesn't explicitly mention travel, and traveling through the area would categorically be trespassing. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "which prohibited people from trespassing around the tornado disaster area". I did not add the "on" since "around" was already there. Courtesy ping: Dylan620. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me now. Great work, WeatherWriter! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if this seems dumb to ask, but why would it fail? Right now, there is no opposition and another editor who supports it. Why wouldn't WP:SILENCE apply? No one seems to be in opposition to it becoming an FA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: ... consensus for promotion has not been reached". By hallowed tradition the three-week mark is when this is first reviewed - hence the division in the list of FACs at this point. The further towards a consensus to promote a nomination is considered to be, the more leeway the coordinator's are likely to give. As the article had a support I gave it a few more days, then a further "three or four days".
This is not a case of this article being picked on, but of the normal procedure being applied. If you were to browse through the nominations archived this month you would find that many of them have timed out in this fashion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • Technical terms in specialized articles are an area where reviewers can differ; I tend not to mind them, so long as they are not so dense as to make the article unreadable, and so long as they are linked to explanations. Here I think the "synopsis" section is unreadable unless you are a weather geek. I have a background in physics and maths, so I'm not a particularly hostile lay reader, but this is just too much for me. Some specifics:
    • I'd never heard of a QLCS; the link is helpful, as is "commonly known as a squall line". Would it be OK to just use the term "squall line" and link it to the QLCS article?
    • "shortwave": never heard this term -- linked, which is good, and by itself this probably would be no problem, but "as high as 1,500–2,000 J/kg" doesn't convey anything to me. Is this higher than usual for a storm? And I do know what the dew point is but I don't know why it's relevant here.
    • "helicity" -- no link, and no sense of whether 300 is a high value, or why it matters. I once took a class in differential geometry and I spent a few seconds trying to figure out from the unit dimensions what helicity might be, but got nowhere.
  • More fundamentally, why is this a separate article from the main article, Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022? That article is 2300 words; this one is 1200 words. Even if no words were cut at all in combining the two (unlikely) the result would be a short to medium length article. What benefit does the reader get from breaking this out to a mini-article? I think it should be merged back in.

Oppose, based on the above points, but I did skim through the article and spotted a couple of things that indicate a copyedit would be beneficial, whether you merge the articles or not:

  • "rapidly strengthened to EF3 intensity as it into George D. Hendrix Park"
  • What is a "wedge tornado"?
  • "a curfew between was established"
  • "prohibited people from trespassing around the tornado disaster area": "trespassing around" doesn't mean anything to me -- do you just mean "trespassing on"? And I think "trespassing" is redundant anyway; just "from entering the tornado disaster area" would be enough.
  • "to aid in sweeping the area for injuries and aiding victims": repetition of "aid"; and there's another use of it in the next sentence.
  • "largest insurance claim in the history of Bryan County, with insurance claims reaching": repetition of "insurance claim" could probably be avoided.
  • Several repetitions of "Bryan County Board" and "Bryan County Commissioners" in the last paragraph; some could probably be replaced with "the board" and "the commissioners".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is clearly not a consensus to promote forming, and so I am archiving this for improvements to be made off-FAC. I suggest that the comments above, especially the more critical ones, be taken on board before any renomination. In any case, the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2022_Pembroke–Black_Creek_tornado/archive1&oldid=1242829334"