Talk:Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951

Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 21, 2022	Good article nominee	Listed
May 2, 2023	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SamBroGaming (talk · contribs) 06:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 08:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing where you found the meteorological synopsis, as the second link points me to a website with very sparse information, and the first one is a whole mess where doing some find in page didn't net me anything. tldr; where is meteorological synopsis sourced from? SamBroGaming (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CDNS report has the information on what damage the tornado did and shows the track of low-pressure systems during the month. The summaries and maps are easy enough to find once it Unfortunately, you have to navigate to the correct month and year and then, for the low-pressure track map, you have to correlate the track dates with the event in question. The second link is from "Historical Tornado Cases for North America" from https://bangladeshtornadoes.org/. They are tornado case studies for specific tornado outbreak days. There is a link for each tornado day, which gives a summary for the event, but the others just show weather maps of the conditions that day that must be interpreted by the person viewing it. The problem with making a meteorological synopsis for these older events is that they're not many that come with an actual written synopsis, which forces me to have to make conclusion about the weather conditions on my own. I don’t want to just not explain what the setup was that day because I feel like that is important, even if it is considered OR, but it is difficult to judge what each specific ingredient did. Also, I’m not good with citing things and I will very often just auto in the information for the source. The CDNS reports for each month are in pdf form and cannot be archived unless I find in Google books or something like that. In another article that I got to GA status, the reviewer tried to help me by archiving the pdf, but it did not work, so they put instructions on how to reach the page with the information. I wish I could give a summary of an actual written synopsis, but this is the best I can do. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OR is grounds for quickfail. If the OR issue doesn't get sorted out ASAP, I'm going to have to quickfail this. SamBroGaming (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find anything. However, I will say that this synopsis is just describing what was the conditions shown in the map and not me just making things up. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly to help with the meteorological synopsis, but some newspaper accounts do still exist and could be included such as https://www.newspapers.com/clip/13814586/waupaca-tornado/ and https://www.newspapers.com/clip/107876017/wausau-daily-herald/ as well as WP:TWL having additional resources. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric I'm joining this discussion by noting that I would be willing to assist in locating appropriate newspaper sources for this and the GAN I have already reviewed. I'm one of the largest users of Newspapers.com on Wikipedia (having written radio and TV station articles all over the United States). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much man. I appreciate it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamBroGaming: I changed the source for the CDNS report from just the general page to a Google Book that shows the report. (Thank GOD for Google XD) I think we are good to go now. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I still don't see the source for the meteorological synopsis. I checked the new linked source and read through the page you linked as well as the next few, and checked bangladeshtornadoes, but I failed to see anything that explained the tornado outbreak's conditions short of a map of the surface pressures. That still needs to get fixed as soon as possible. SamBroGaming (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamBroGaming: TOTAL bingo moment. Here we go: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/79/9/1520-0493_1951_079_0183_motsos_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put that in the article and I'll pass it immediately. I'm glad you could fix the issue without OR. SamBroGaming (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, however, everything else seems great. So if that gets fixed or understood, I will pass this article with a further in depth explanation then SamBroGaming (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for passing GA: Not a quickfail as it meets the GA criteria, doesn't contain copyvio, no edit warring, no templates for cleanup, and no previous GA noms. It is well written in that it is concise and understandable, spelling and grammar are correct, and the lead and layout meet the MOS. It originally didn't meet the Verifiable without OR guideline, however you have since found and cited a source that explains the meteorological synopsis. It addresses the main topic without significantly sidetracking, and does so in a neutral and unbiased manner. There is no edit warring on the page, and I couldn't find an image in commons to put into the article so you meet the criteria in that department as well. Good job on the article! SamBroGaming (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA to FA

SamBroGaming and Sammi Brie: Due to how smoothly the GA review process went, I'm considering going for FA on this article. I know you guys just can't review all the articles I do as that would not be appropriate to do since input from other reviewers is probably needed too, but I just wanted to get your thoughts on me possibly doing this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how different FAC is from GAN as I am very new editor also hoping to get one of my articles to FA status for the first time. I would leave this question to Sammi, as I am really not qualified to answer this. And shameless plug, I am trying to get 1995 Aigio earthquake to FA status so some help with that there would also be awesome. I will see if there is any content I could possibly add, but again I lack the experience to give a precise answer. Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]