2013 Hattiesburg tornado was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 8, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
2013 Hattiesburg tornado was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 21, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, I'll be reviewing this article starting tomorrow morning. As a quick heads up, I've noticed a lot of issues just with a quick glance and I get the feeling this article will likely be failing GAN. That said, I'll still give a full review so the necessary improvements can be made. Regards, Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The most blatant issue with the article is the lack of recent information. Looking at the references, all the sources were taken in the immediate aftermath of the tornado. With that, there clearly is a lack of long-term recovery information (FEMA most notably). No information appears to have been pulled from the National Climatic Data Center's storm reports as well.
@ United States Man, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, TropicalAnalystwx13, 453Brax, and Cyclonebiskit: While reworking this article in an extra sandbox of mine so that includes the entire outbreak, I stumbled upon a glaring issue: the injury count listed in NCEI (71) and the one in the article (82) do not match. I understand that the NWS Jackson was the source where this information came from, but the NCDC report usually has the final say so of what the numbers are so I'm wondering about which one do we go with. Do we go with what is on the NWS Jackson page or do we go with the final report that NCDC put?
Just FYI, the reworked article will also have information on the winter storm that came with it so it will likely get a non-tornado outbreak name like February 2013 North American storm complex. You are welcome to help me with it, especially since I don't know alot about the winter storm that spawned this small outbreak. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
2013 Hattiesburg tornado was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 8, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
2013 Hattiesburg tornado was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 21, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Cyclonebiskit ( talk · contribs) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey there, I'll be reviewing this article starting tomorrow morning. As a quick heads up, I've noticed a lot of issues just with a quick glance and I get the feeling this article will likely be failing GAN. That said, I'll still give a full review so the necessary improvements can be made. Regards, Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 04:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The most blatant issue with the article is the lack of recent information. Looking at the references, all the sources were taken in the immediate aftermath of the tornado. With that, there clearly is a lack of long-term recovery information (FEMA most notably). No information appears to have been pulled from the National Climatic Data Center's storm reports as well.
@ United States Man, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, TropicalAnalystwx13, 453Brax, and Cyclonebiskit: While reworking this article in an extra sandbox of mine so that includes the entire outbreak, I stumbled upon a glaring issue: the injury count listed in NCEI (71) and the one in the article (82) do not match. I understand that the NWS Jackson was the source where this information came from, but the NCDC report usually has the final say so of what the numbers are so I'm wondering about which one do we go with. Do we go with what is on the NWS Jackson page or do we go with the final report that NCDC put?
Just FYI, the reworked article will also have information on the winter storm that came with it so it will likely get a non-tornado outbreak name like February 2013 North American storm complex. You are welcome to help me with it, especially since I don't know alot about the winter storm that spawned this small outbreak. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 22:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)