This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1922 Austin twin tornadoes article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
1922 Austin twin tornadoes has been listed as one of the
History good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: August 10, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll post a review for this article within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk) 17:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
General:
Lead:
tore throughand
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.
Synopsis:
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.
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.
Trees nearby were uprootedthrough the next few sentences.
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.
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:
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.
Much of what is known about the two tornadoes is derived from two published accountsversus Much of what we know about the events of that day is based upon published reports
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?
Onlookers on the University of Texas campus watching the progression of the first tornado were unaware of the formation of a second tornado
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)
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.
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.
No recent disputes.
All images appear to be public domain or otherwise have no known copyright restrictions. Captions are sufficient.