Talk:1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

TheAustinMan, nice article! Nearly everything is all set for GA - just one question on external links - see below. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, thank you for the review! I've removed the self-published external links mentioned below, in addition to other smaller copyedits. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 21:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

TheAustinMan - thank you. This article now passes GA review. Congrats to you and everyone else who worked on it!

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.	Impressively, no prose issues beyond a number of large paragraphs, which I have split. Pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass - well organized, follows MoS.
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.	Pass, well-cited.
	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).	Per WP:EXT, external links to blogs, forums, & personal sites should generally be avoided, so I think the links to Stormstalker and Curtis' two accounts should be removed. I actually disagree with this guideline, but I think to pass GA, the article should be within "regulations". Unless you can make a strong policy-based case to keep them, which I wouldn't mind, these links should be excised. Issue addressed. Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Adequately - even dramatically - well-cited, but no clear cases of overcitation that I can see. No original research detected.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	A couple of instances of close phrasing found by Earwig ("during the afternoon and evening of May 27th..."), but none are egregious and all are plausibly the result of coincidence, necessity, or jargon being used correctly.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, no issues here.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass - detailed but not inordinately so.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable, no ongoing edit wars or other 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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Generally good, a few tweaks: Add "radar" between "WSR-88D" and "imagery" in infobox The images in the 'Meteorological Synopsis' section could be made bigger for the reader's benefit, so they don't necessarily have to click in. They look a bit small. Add "in downtown Jarrell" to the memorial image. Issues addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.