Talk:1922 Austin twin tornadoes/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2023 (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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a review for this article within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TheAustinMan, the review is below. Just a few things that need to be looked at before this can be marked as a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Thanks for the review. I've made a few changes to the article based on the suggestions and responded accordingly below, though there are a few points that I'm undecided on (see below). –TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about photography should be fine, and I only raised the issue with the hospital in case it needed clarification. Everything else looks good. I'm happy to pass this as a GA now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

General:

Template:Inflation might be useful here to give readers an idea of present day dollar amounts, but at the same time I could also see it making things too cluttered. Something to consider.
The $725,000 estimate by The Austin Statesman is used twice. First it's used to describe the total damage, then later it's used just to describe the second tornado.
- Using {{Inflation}} for all amounts would probably be quite cluttered, but I've invoked it in the lede. Removed the second occurrence of $725,000, since the Statesman appears to be referring to the devastation in totality. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

tore through and tore across – "Tore" seems a little dramatic. Is this a common way to describe tornado behavior in formal writing?
clouds percolated northeast – Can "percolated" be replaced?
The tornado was widely photographed – Is this uncommon for tornadoes of this time? I'm asking because that would decide whether it warrants being in the lead.
- Replaced the dramatic language and erroneous use of percolated. As for the widely-photographed nature of the tornado, the first photographs of tornadoes occurred in the 1880s but it is my understanding that tornadoes were not typically photographed extensively during the era due to the relatively low population density of common tornado areas at the time. I'm not sure if a singular source is available to attest to the significance of a widely-photographed tornado, but at the very least, the first tornado was observed more than the second, and I'd be open to removing the statement in the lede. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis:

I notice some other tornado articles use "Meteorological synopsis" as the heading. It's largely a matter of preference, but I think meteorological synopsis is a little more formal and precise.
The first sentence in this section runs on a bit. It might be more readable if the first sentence ended at "1922" or at "50–60 injuries".
"Estimates of the damage toll vary widely" should be said before any estimates are provided. It's a little confusing being told an estimate and then having the article go back on it.
It probably doesn't need to say that other strong tornadoes in Central Texas have also taken similar tracks. "Atypical" doesn't mean "unheard of".
the second most significant weather event of the 20th century for the Austin area – Just a suggestion, maybe something like "behind the flooding in 1921" can be added to the end of this sentence.
- Made all of the recommended changes above —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes:

Morris's account of the second tornado detailed the development of the wall cloud that preceded the second tornado – "second tornado" is used twice in the same sentence.
Not really a GA issue, but I'll note that the description of things destroyed by the second tornado is a little choppy from Trees nearby were uprooted through the next few sentences.
- Combined some of the choppy sentences —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath:

Hundreds of visitors took the city – Is this missing a word?
Work crews were quickly dispatched – "quickly" doesn't really tell us anything here.
- Made all of the recommended changes above —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable. It's not ideal that so many of the sources in this article are primary sources, but it doesn't create any immediate original research or POV issues that this sometimes does.

Spot checks:

Curtis (2018) – Checked all uses:
- Not sure if the first use is necessary, as it doesn't seem to cover the property damage, and it's not the source that's attributed.
- Close paraphrasing: The tornadoes were separated by less than 4 mi (6.4 km). versus The tracks of the tornadoes were separated laterally by less than four miles.
- Close paraphrasing: Much of what is known about the two tornadoes is derived from two published accounts versus Much of what we know about the events of that day is based upon published reports
The Austin American (1922) – Checked all uses. All good.
Grazulis (1990) – Checked all uses:
- It destroyed several homes and caused heavy damage at the Texas Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute for Colored Youth, injuring five people – The source just says the "State Hospital", not a "Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute". Would the other two sources still cover the statement if this one was removed?
- Does this source support that Onlookers on the University of Texas campus watching the progression of the first tornado were unaware of the formation of a second tornado
- Clarify that Grazulis's number for the property cost of the second tornado is an estimate.
Jones (2010) – Checked all uses. Good, though this source seems to give a more positive evaluation of Woodward's recovery than the article does.

Made most of the recommended changes above. I'm not sure about the Grazulis (1990) sourcing for the "State Hospital". I haven't seen any other mention of a state hospital being hit by either tornado in either the Simonds/Morris accounts or in the contemporaneous local news, and the only state institution hit by the tornado appears to have been the Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Institute. Not sure how to proceed with that. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

The event is described in adequate detail. I did notice that Curtis (2018) had some coverage about how this incident is relevant to Austin today. If there are more sources that cover this idea with this specific event, then it might be worth including. But the coverage right now is perfectly fine for GA.

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight. I would have noted the dependence on Simonds's coverage, but Curtis (2018) specifically mentions it as one of the main sources of information for this event.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

All images appear to be public domain or otherwise have no known copyright restrictions. Captions are sufficient.

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.