Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 16:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 11:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article as part of WP:GARC. I'll have comments here within a few days. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5. I haven't gotten any confirmation yet, but I will see. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, I've finished my review. E_F⁵ 17:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will start the review process today. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Many well-known businesses, such as Vincent's Furniture, The Cullman Times, and the Busy Bee Cafe, were also severely damaged/destroyed — What makes the businesses well-known? I thought this information was quite localized and I also think the foward slash could be replaced with "or".  Done, fixed. EF5 18:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] the Cafe reopened — is capitalization needed here?  Done, I've lowercased it. The WKUL Radio Tower — should this be capitalized? Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) — capitalization not needed The Cullman Times — it's a building @Alexeyevitch:  Done, I've added "building". EF5 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] along with churches — if possible, specify what or how many churches.  Done, I've removed the mention as too ambiguous. EF5 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Storm chaser — could be linked.  Done. EF5 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All dates need to be written in MDY (incl. citations) as per MOS:DATEUNIFY & MOS:DATETIES I don't see anywhere where MDY isn't used. EF5 18:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I'm generally satisfied but I would recommend adding archived URLs. I'm not sure how, but I don't think it's required for a GA. EF5 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	ADECA (Ref 10) is an incomplete reference and was not able to verify the content  Done I've removed it from the first paragraph it's used in but kept it in the second, as it does support those claims. I can't find any more specific info on the ref, such as authors. EF5 19:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Add Paul Gattis to Ref 13  Done, added. EF5 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] Add Paul Gattis to Ref 11  Done, added. EF5 13:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Ref 11 (CBS42) has questionable verifiability  Done, replaced with The Cullman Tribune. EF5 18:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues and some text is in the public domain.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable and free of edit wars. Passed.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:2011 Cullman tornado Dead Man Walking.webp — uncertain verifiability  Done, I've added the immediate publication. EF5 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply] OK... I'm satisfied now. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Media is relevant & captions are sufficient.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed. Well done, EF5.

@Alexeyevitch: How's it look now? E_F⁵ 19:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very close to GA-Status... I have a few more comments I would like to note. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]