Talk:2023 Robinson–Sullivan tornado/GA1

GA review

Passed. ❤History Theorist❤ 19:11, 23 March 2025 (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

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: HistoryTheorist (talk · contribs) 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing for good article review circles. May not be able to get to this until the weekend, so please be a bit patient. ❤History Theorist❤ 19:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Disclaimer: Storm-chasing (especially tornadoes) is not my area of expertise. I will do my best to give you a comprehensive review, but as a Pacific Northwesterner, I am not as acquainted with the tornado as many in the midwest are. Perhaps I will become a storm-chaser as a result of reviewing this article though. Also, I will ping you and leave a note at the bottom of the review when I am done because I usually work in short bursts.

Update: Sorry for the slow progress. Academics started picking up for me and I have to prioritize them. I hope to have this done by next weekend at the latest. ❤History Theorist❤ 05:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

source checks

Y source #1 checks out
Y The stats check out in terms of sourcing. However, could you point out to me where in the UTC 1300 report you are getting the discrete supercells and the high CAPE values? Perhaps my lack of weather understanding is preventing me from seeing it?
- Also, in the second meteorological paragraph in which you cited source #2, you mention a 16:30 UTC report but I don't see it inline. I know that this is background info from a different article but I would love to have inline citations handy so I can double check for original research.

Sure. Strong low-level to deep-layer shear will promote pre-frontal supercells by afternoon. The more intense tornado threat should be during the late afternoon and evening across the Lower MS Valley and Mid-South owing to the peak combination of instability and classic, sickle-shaped hodographs. Strong to potentially violent tornadoes will be possible with a few long-tracked supercells and This will support a broadening swath of moderate buoyancy characterized by MLCAPE of 1000-2000 J/kg. Added 1630 UTC ref. E_F⁵ 03:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y Again, I see that sources #3 & 4 support a lot of tornadoes in Chicagoland but do not say anything about else about strong wind shear supporting the squall line. Perhaps this is also in the main article.

Removed the squall line mention. E_F⁵ 03:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- That said, source 5 seems to support the southern Wisconsin statement and weak touchdown statements above.
Y Source 6 checks out.
Y Source 11 checks out.
Question: Are you getting the summary of damage attributed from source #10 from the video? There seems to be no mention of propane tanks and jeeps in that source.
Y Ref 15 checks out, although I would also create an in-line citation for it on the first and second paragraphs of those sections because you reference information from that source in those paragraphs.
Y Names of people who died check out.

prose checks

picked up and toss a 1,000 → tossed

Done E_F⁵ 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link CAPE values to Convective available potential energy, also link squall line

Done E_F⁵ 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

link to supercells
could you explain to me why the Sullivan County Long-Term Recovery Coalition is bolded?

@EF5: I think I am about done reviewing this article. Most concerns have to do with sourcing, and I am inclined to believe that what's written but can't be found in the sources cited for that paragraph are in another source that you cited but did not cite inline in for that paragraph. If this is the case, it would make my job so much easier to cite inline all citations for all information in the paragraph, so as to avoid original research concerns. That being said, the article is very comprehensive and well-written, although I had a bit of trouble understanding the meterological synopsis section. ❤History Theorist❤ 22:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I was going to red Sullivan County Long-Term Recovery Coalition here but forgot. I've redirected it. I've also linked supercells. Thanks for the review! :) — E_F⁵ 22:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, before I pass this article, could you give me a quick explanation for where you found some of the minute details like the propane tank and the flipped Jeep that I did not find in the sources listed or could you provide me the sources you found please? Don't want to seem all harsh and stuff, but previous reviewing experience has taught me to be a stickler. Even if you would have to remove the minutae, I think the article would still pass. ❤History Theorist❤ 02:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Propane tank, not sure how the rest slipped through. I've added a citation for the propane tank and removed the rest. — E_F⁵ 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't want to keep bothering you but could you please double-check the yellow ticks above for similar issues about things mentioned in the article but not found in the sources? Thanks! ❤History Theorist❤ 03:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryTheorist, Addressed. :) — E_F⁵ 03:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will pass now. ❤History Theorist❤ 19:08, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.