Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 2 May 2023 [1].
Great Lakes tornadoes of September 26, 1951 edit
This article is about three strong to violent tornadoes that caused vast destruction and numerous casualties. Several sources were used to make this article, including the Climatological Data: National summary, a highly respected tornado researcher named Thomas P. Grazulis, and the National Weather Service Green Bay, Wisconsin. The article also includes other non-tornadic weather events that came from the system as a whole. It may need some more details in a few areas, but I like the way it turned out.ChessEric 22:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Image review. There are no images. Can any be found? Or could a map be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I try to use only public domain photos because I don't know the process to get the license for other photos. The one time I did do that for another article I made, it didn't work out. To my knowledge there are no photos of the tornadoes, and the damage photos are not public domain. There are some photos of the system in the NWS PDF ref, but I don't know how to extract them. If someone could help me with that, I would appreciate it. ChessEric 07:37, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
- I can either make a map for you or try to extract something from the PDF -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose by Ian edit
Recusing coord duties to review... Although there are effectively no rules about length for FAs, I find it hard to believe this is comprehensive. Certainly I'm not an expert but WP has many featured articles on storms, and they seem to provide a good deal more material than is seen here (I notice the nominator admits there is room for more detail anyway). I'd be very interested in the opinion of our experienced editors in the field like Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit because at this stage I would be recommending withdrawal to flesh out the article (including the briefer-than-brief lead) before another attempt here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose by Cyclonebiskit edit
(Brought in by ping from Ian Rose) As it stands, the article is a bit messy and as mentioned by Ian it doesn't seem fully fleshed out. Verifying the information presented is difficult as the references for the Meteo Synopsis and tornado table are bulk refs at the end rather than attached to the associated information. Specifying which pages information is coming from—(Template:rp)—will go a long way to help with this. The reference formatting itself needs work for consistency. I don't know what's going on with citation #7, there are a ton of links in a single line and no indication of what information is being referenced with them. The table lists states times are in UTC but the given values are local standard time. The stats on the first F4 tornado from NWS GRB should be used over NCEI. The database is riddled with errors, especially in early years, and path lengths are determined from straight lines not what actually happened. I'm unsure if you have personal access but newspapers.com likely has information regarding the event that isn't present in the article as well. NCEI does not provide actual damage totals for events in 1951, it takes a damage range given by Storm Data and uses the lower-bound. According to the Climatological Data publication, the first Wisconsin tornado was $250,000, the second was $225,000, and the Michigan tornado was listed as (6) which is "losses occurred; amount not reported". I'll be happy to look over prose and provide comments on that once sourcing and content concerns are addressed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I like to bulk sources so that there aren't like 10 sources in a summary box for 1 tornado. As far as what they are, they are reports from the NWS Green Bay and each of them have the tornado that was in there. I can use newspapers.com, but the person that gave this a GA just told me to remove the OR in the meteorological synopsis and they would let it through, which they did after I provided a source. Also, you are TOTALLY right about the NCEI errors. I feel like the person who entered all those statistics in was drunk or something. I've seen more than one instance of tornado paths being WAY off; I was pretty fortunate that that wasn't the case here. I've heard during all my GA reviews that getting newspaper clippings is what I should do. Also...I really didn't have a good way to expand the lead. I'll look into it though. ChessEric 22:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Cyclonebiskit: Wait. How do I get onto newspapers.com again? ChessEric 22:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too little information in the lead, too little in the body. Can I suggest you withdraw this and work on it away from FAC before returning? Thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.