Talk:2013 Hattiesburg tornado/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this article GAN'd so soon? The tornado just occurred 10 days ago. This months NCDC won't be out for several months probs, after all. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Why is the state name in the title? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The 2013 Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado was a large and violent EF4 multiple-vortex wedge tornado that devastated portions of Hattiesburg, West Hattiesburg, and Petal, Mississippi, as well as smaller communities and rural areas in the same area, during the late afternoon and early evening of Sunday, February 10, 2013." lead is lengthy, I suggest splitting it up to something like "The 2013 Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado was a large and violent EF4 multiple-vortex wedge tornado that devastated portions of Hattiesburg, West Hattiesburg, and Petal, Mississippi. In addition, the tornado affected smaller communities and rural areas in the same area, during the late afternoon and early evening of February 10, 2013."
I don't see any need to mention what day of the week the tornado was on. I suggest removing the "Sunday" in my above comment Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Hattiesburg area and reached estimated maximum sustained winds of 170 mph (270 km/h) in the Oak Grove community of West Hattiesburg." wikilink to maximum sustained winds as IIRC it has an article. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"To the northeast of Petal, the tornado began to weaken, causing EF1 to EF2 damage to numerous roofs and downing many trees." what does "EF1 and Ef2 damage mean. Yes, I know what it means, but to the average person may or may not know. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you mention impact in the meteorological synopsis. I'd give impact its own section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"82 people were injured" don't start a sentence with a number. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"was rated as a low-end EF4, with winds up to 170 miles per hour (270 km/h)." abbreviate units as you do earlier in the article per the MOS. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
"since April 24, 1908," suggested revision to "since the 1908 Dixie tornado outbreak" Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
" 64 deaths occurred in Lamar and Forrest Counties alone with that tornado.[1]" again, don't start a sentence with a number. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
" ten million dollar" don't spell out "ten" in this case. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"including the basketball gymnasium that had undergone renovations just a few weeks before.[9]" IMO just say "gym" as that is more common.
Can you merge the last two paragraphs in the aftermath as they are short? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is the other torandoes section relevant? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there two infoboxes? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am going to have to fail this article. Normally, with this few numbers of concerns, I'd leave this on hold, However, given my first and last two concerns, I am failing this. I am not trying to be mean or discoruage you, and this is not personal by any means, but there are just too many issues for me to be sorted out in a few weeks. However, I hope you continue to work on the article, and do get it to GA. Good luck to your future work on this article. I hope all my suggestions above or below are helpful. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC) In addition, I have three comments that are borderline GAN material.[reply]

Wikilink NWS in Ref 1. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of the refs have authors? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Use cite news for news refs. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

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);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]