Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: I'm not sure about the need for a "non-tornadic impact section" (see the note in 3a of the GA criteria). As no work has been done for three weeks, closing with no consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an older outbreak article with several dead links and no non-tornadic impact section. A review is necessary. ChessEric 06:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @ChessEric: The article appears properly cited and 3 dead links, while not ideal, aren't a major issue that would merit a delist on their own in my opinion. Which of the GA criteria do you believe this article fails to meet? Broadness? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wanted to make sure this article would still meet GA standards. The NWS changed all their links in the mid-2010s and that has left a lot of tornado articles with dead links, so I was just making sure it wasn't a problem. The only thing I think this article needs is a section dedicated to non-tornadic impacts from the storm system. I know this article is about the tornadic supercell that caused the disaster, but I thought that the article could use some more information about what else happened. ChessEric 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, could you leave a notification at WT:WEATHER? Hopefully we can get some input from editors there. Weather is not an area of expertise for me and I'm not familiar with the general standards for weather event articles. I'd imagine someone would know how to resolve those dead links. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh ok um...how do I do that? ChessEric 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- You can use {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} to do so, filling in the article name and the number of the reassessment page (1, in this instance). I added this directly to the GAR instructions template at the top of the GAR page as I realized it was missing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh ok um...how do I do that? ChessEric 20:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, could you leave a notification at WT:WEATHER? Hopefully we can get some input from editors there. Weather is not an area of expertise for me and I'm not familiar with the general standards for weather event articles. I'd imagine someone would know how to resolve those dead links. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:55, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- To be honest, I wanted to make sure this article would still meet GA standards. The NWS changed all their links in the mid-2010s and that has left a lot of tornado articles with dead links, so I was just making sure it wasn't a problem. The only thing I think this article needs is a section dedicated to non-tornadic impacts from the storm system. I know this article is about the tornadic supercell that caused the disaster, but I thought that the article could use some more information about what else happened. ChessEric 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Dead links repaired. @ChessEric: For reference, any storm event that uses the same source can be pulled from the newer NCDC Storm Events Database. Chlod (say hi!) 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I know that. Thanks! ChessEric 21:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
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.