Talk:2011 Super Outbreak/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for the delay, previous tasks over-ran and are now completed/On Hold. This review is now underway. Pyrotec (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

This I suspect is going to be a "difficult" nomination to review.

There is certainly a lot of good material in this article and it appears to be well referenced (I've not checked citations, any hence the word "appears" to be ...). On the down side, I'm not all that convinced that the WP:Lead is compliant: it does not appear to be a summary and there is a lot of repetition in the Lead, for instance the first paragraph has 27th April as "the most intense activity" and "being among the most prolific and destructive" and in the last paragraph the 27th has "the deadliest tornado day", "fourth deadliest tornado day" and one other comment. The Meteorological synopsis section starts on the 25th and works forward, but the April 25 subsection starts on 19th and then jumps to 25th. Most of the subsections are entitled X tornado, but the MOS:HEADINGS states "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer", so having tornado in every subsection title is somewhat redundant. There also appears to be some hyperbole with the section title Most significant tornadoes: why can't "significant tornadoes" suffice for a title?

• Comment - I changed to lede to a revision that was before May 2012. I don't know if it helps the situation or not. United States Man (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a few adjustments to the lede that cut out the hyperboles. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll be reviewing that last. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is a lot of good material in this article and it appears to be well referenced: "Quick failing" this nomination is not appropriate, so I'll move onto the main review.

The requirements are to be found in WP:WIAGA, and in this review I'm going to start at the Meteorological synopsis section, work my way to the end and then go back and look at the Lead. This is likely to take a few days. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this subsection of the review, I'm only going to discussions "problems" with the nomination. The good material and good referencing in the article will be considered later, just before "sentencing" takes place.

• Meteorological synopsis -

• The first (un-named) subsection appears to be located out of sequence and out of time sequence, in that it starts on 25th and continues to 27th whereas the named subsection April 25 starts on 19th with the discussion of this storm system, the prediction of the possibility of an outbreak of strong thunderstorms and the forecast of possible severe storms and then moves forward to 25th to the reporting of several tornadoes.
• Seems to me that it is more logical to move the discussion and forecasting activities that seem to have started on 19th to the front of this section. Perhaps there is another reason, but to me the first paragraph is all about predictions for the 26th, the second paragraph is about what happened on the 27th and the final one-sentence paragraph is listing now many "watches" were issued over the four-day period, and the 19th is all about forecasting and predictions, so I don't see much difference.
• Ref 18 is a broken link, it leads to a 404 error and seems to have been Dead since 2012-07-18.
• The final paragraph uses the technical term or abbreviation "SPC", but the organisation and its abbreviation not defined until the following (named) subsection.

 Done United States Man (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 18 still seems to be broken, but "SPC" is fixed. The material in April 25 on April 19 has I think gone completely: I was happy for it to be in the article, but I thought it was in the wrong place. Note: It makes no difference the GA-decision on whether it's "in" or "out" - provide that it's in the right place if it's "in". Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • April 25 -

• I'm not sure why this subsection, the second subsection (well the first named one), back tracks to 19th April: certainly that material needs to be in the body of the article, but since this subsection is titled April 25, why is it here?
• There is some WP:OVERLINKING: Tornado watch is wikilinked here but it appears wikilinked (in pural form) only three lines above; flooding pipelined to flood is wikilinked, but that is a "common term" that hardly needs linking. In contrast: the technical term "trough" was not linked until I added Trough (meteorology) at the start of the section; EF2 and EF3 are not explained here, a link to Enhanced Fujita Scale would help (it is linked in the lead but that is neither here or there).
• "Tornadic cell" seems to be a technical term that is not explained, neither could I find a wikipedia article on the topic. Later in the article there is a section called Non-tornadic effects and it mentions lots of "weather" damage and embedded tornadoes, so perhaps "Tornadic" needs explanation.

 Done United States Man (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • April 26 -

• Why is "high risk" wikilinked and pipelined to List of SPC high-risk days. Its not an explanation of high risk, its a List, but there is an explanation attacked. I have no objection to a link being given, but I would have thought that use of Template:See also under the subsection title was a better way of linking it.
• Note: I wikilinked "funnel" to Funnel cloud
• The last paragraph is unreferenced.
• Otherwise, OK.

 Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • April 27 -

...Stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will get to work on these problems starting tommorrow. United States Man (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That is great. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• The first paragraph is unreferenced and has a {{citation needed}} flag dating back to January 2012; the second paragraph is also unreferenced.
• Ref 36 is just a raw link to a twitter page for the City of Cullman, its not properly referenced as there are over 3130 tweets and its doesn't really verify anything.
• Ref 38 is a raw web address.
• In general, there is an over-abundance of wikilinks.

 Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looking much better. Pyrotec (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • April 28 -

• In general, looks OK; but there is an over abundance of wikilinks.

 Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Confirmed tornadoes -

• I don't see the point of this section: its an empty section. It has just one table without any explanation - the table is so simple none is needed - and a {{see also}} link to List of tornadoes in the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak. This material could go somewhere else, it does not need its own (empty) section.

The section is commonplace for most tornado outbreak articles that have individual articles about their tornadoes. I don't see that it absolutely needs changing. United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather has three FAs, none of them have it; and 32 GAs, of them 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak (reviewed in 2008 & failed FAC in 2008), June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence (also reviewed in 2008) and May 2007 tornado outbreak (also reviewed in 2008) have it just as a table in a section of its own; 1989 Northeastern United States tornado outbreak, 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak, April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak, Evansville Tornado of November 2005, February 2009 tornado outbreak, 1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak, Mid-October 2007 tornado outbreak and November 2008 Carolinas tornado outbreak have it, but its not a standalone table with nothing else in the section. I'm not suggesting that the table be removed from the article I'm suggesting that the section is combined with another one, or (the same effect) the table is moved into another section. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Most significant tornadoes -

• The title causes "problems": firstly it has the word "tornadoes" in it; secondly its hyperbole, why "Most significant", couldn't a simpler description such as "notable", "noteworthy", "newsworthy", or some other comparable word be used in its place?

I'm sorry, but I fail to see much of a difference in "significant" and "notable", "noteworthy", and "newsworthy." It is saying basically the same thing. It is also common place within the wikiproject. United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you proposing: that the title be Significant tornadoes? Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I also ran a check on the three FAs and the 32 GAs listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather. As to be expected, many of them have a section called Confirmed tornadoes or Confirmed tornadic effects; none of the have a section called Most significant tornadoes, but Mid-October 2007 tornado outbreak does have a section called Significant tornadoes, its the only one of those 36 articles. I'm not against the title significant tornadoes, but I don't particularly like Most significant tornadoes. Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can combine the section with the table and the section titled "Most Significant Tornadoes." United States Man (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I went ahead and did that. United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Vilonia tornado -

• Tornado could /should be removed from the subsection title. This comment also applies to all following subsection titles.

I'm not sure that if "Tornado" is removed from the header what would be put in its place, it can't just be "Vilonia" and so on for the others. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• Its not too obvious what The first multi-killer tornado of the outbreak was .... means. I'd suggest that it could be rephrased as The first tornado of the outbreak to cause multiple deaths was .....
• I delinked CDT. This is the first time that CDT was defined (by a wikilink to Central Time Zone) but the first use of CDT was back in the April 25 subsection
• Ref 51 (Rob Moritz (April 26, 2011). "Officials take stock of damage during brief storm lull". Arkansas News. Retrieved April 27, 2011) has a broken web link. It goes to the Arkansas News, but there is a page not found message.

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Hackleburg–Phil Campbell-Tanner-Huntland tornado -

• Ref 54 is a raw web link. It should be properly cited.
• Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is wikilinked in two consecutive paragraphs: 4th and 5th - one link is sufficient.
• I cleaned up the prose for Phil Campbell, the subsection looks OK.

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Philadelphia tornado -

• This three-paragraph subsection is undated (apart from March 3, 1966 and May 25, 2008 in the last paragraph), but there is a time of 2:30 p.m. CDT.
• Subsection is uncited.

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Cullman–Arab tornado -

• There is a claim of six fatalities in the first paragraph, but its unreferenced and it is repeated (I assume its a repeat and not 12 deaths in total) in the last paragraph, again unreferenced. The second and third paragraphs are unreferenced.

 Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Smithville tornado -

• This subsection looks OK.

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado -

• Almost very radio and/or TV station is wikilinked. Since that have been wikilinked at least once before in this Most significant tornadoes sections, they don't need to be repeated.

 Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Rainsville tornado -

• I thought that this was unreferenced, but ref 77 is there on the end. So OK.

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

...Stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Shoal Creek–Ohatchee tornado -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced, but I'm not too worried about this one. The second one is also unreferenced, and that has much more detail.
• The third paragraph has two direct quotations that are unreferenced. The paragraph has a single citation and that is NOAAA's Annual U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics, so it has no quotations.

 Done United States Man (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Ringgold–Southeast Tennessee tornado -

• This subsection looks OK.

 Done United States Man (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Non-tornadic effects -

• Refs 18 & 97 give a 404 error message - "Not found".
• Otherwise, this section is OK.

• Aftermath -

• That statement about FOX needs a citation. Otherwise OK.

 Done I removed that part because I couldn't find a source for it and I don't think it is notable anyway. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Electricity outage -

• That's an impressive image. The subsection's OK.

• WP:Lead -

• The lead is a significant improvement, but it has one major defect, it appears to be non-compliant with WP:MOSINTRO, in particular Opening paragraph / First sentence which also means that it is non-compliant with WP:WIAGA, clause 1(b).

• The requirement states: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".
• Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained is an essay, not a requirement, so having it in the Lede does not over-rule the requirements. WP:WIAGA is a requirement, not an essay; but it has an essay at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not.
• The first sentence of the Lede has: "An extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest tornado outbreak ever recorded, occurred from April 25 to April 28, 2011.", followed by: "The outbreak affected the ...". The phrase tornado outbreak appears in the first sentence in quick succession twice, so adding it again (a third time) makes no sense; however the same sentence could be written as: "An extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest ever recorded in the USA, occurred from April 25 to April 28, 2011.", without changing the meaning. The statement: "From April 25 to April 28, 2011, an extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest ever recorded in the USA, occurred.", is almost identical.
• Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained states: "The Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained page is a Wikipedia page about not awkwardly, superfluously cramming an article's title in bold into its first sentence when it makes no sense to do so"; and, I'm not too convinced that a good argument can be made that it is of relevance in this particular case.

• Putting this to one side, for the moment, the Lede is good in that is acts both and an introduction to the topic and a summary of the main points. It covers damage to property and infrastructure and deaths, which is what most of the article is about. There is nothing about shutting down nuclear power stations, but arguably that is not a major topic in the article, so "due weight" is satisfied.

At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. There are still a few citations to sort out and I've not not yet checked all the corrective actions above. Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There is one non-free use image out of 14, but I consider its use justified.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Well illustrated.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Well we got there in the end. I'm now awarding this article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)