Talk:2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my fifth GA review on this article (courtesy ping WeatherWriter)! Feel free to ask any questions or concerns during this review, and it'll take a few days to review this. Thanks! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 20:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
A few spots might need clarification; but otherwise looks good!

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
~~I believe the lead section could be improved and expanded! I'll note this more in-detail in my comments section.~~
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No major concerns; though one sentence might need to be re-worded according to Earwig's Copyvio Detector tool. How about "Van Wert County EMA Director Rick McCoy was able to give the city a 26-minute" to "Rick McCoy, director of the Van Wert County EMA, managed to give the city a 26-minute"?
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No unstability recently!
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Both images are in the public domain!

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
No concerns! I'd consider adding alt text to both images, however.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments[edit]

For lead – I'd remove all citations in the lead per MOS:LEADCITE; all the information and citations are present further down the article. Adding on to this; the lead should be expanded more!
I expanded the lead some, but it needs a quick copy/edit probably. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the expansion and improvement! I did a small re-write/copyedit to the lead here. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Twin Cinemas and the five buildings in Vision Industrial Park sustained F4 damage" – shouldn't we clarify what really is the Twin Cinemas, like a theatre or something?
Done. Sentence now reads: The Twin Cinemas, a movie theater, and five buildings at an industrial park sustained F4 damage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, due to improvement to the lead (which mentions it as a movie theater), the sentence now reads: The Twin Cinemas and five buildings at an industrial park sustained F4 damage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all mentions of "Vision Industrial Park" should just remain as "industrial park", I think that's okay. As a result, "in Vision Industrial Park sustained F4 damage" could be changed to "at an industrial park sustained F4 damage".
Changed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website name for reference #3 is wrong; it's the National Weather Service, correct?
Fixed! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all! I did make a few copyedits on the article; otherwise those are all my comments. Feel free to ping whenever you start or you're finished. Thanks! (Courtesy ping WeatherWriter!) :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: I completed the changes you noted here. I will keep an eye on the page in case you discover any other changes that need to be looked at. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy to pass this review, WeatherWriter! :) ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 02:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.