# Talk:2011 Flat Rock–Trenton tornado

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Flat Rock–Trenton tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 17:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: BarntToust (talk · contribs) 22:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hey, hey-hey! Happy to see another weather-topic GA thoroughly to completion. BarntToust 22:11, 12 August 2025 (UTC)


### Issue 1: References
A. There are many references that do not have archive urls, and that can be done easily via the archive bot. B. The references that cite various governmental organizations ought to have "publisher" reference parameters instead of "website" parameters. Basically, if the Wikipedia page hyperlinked to a given source is not styling the name italicised, it needs to use "publisher" so the source name is straight letters. I can get those myself if @User:EF5 finds difficulty in doing so. BarntToust 00:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. — EF5  21:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
References—3, 6, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, and 43—all do not have archive-urls. If certain references do not work with Wayback Machine, try Ghost Archive or Archive Today or any others. These references need web archives. BarntToust 21:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Huh, IABot must've crashed without me noticing the first time I tried to do it. It's actively analyzing it, just give it a few minutes. EF5  21:49, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
You got like 16 references archived on the first run you did with IABot, so that's awesome. The rest should be cool. I know some references consist of images graphs, which when I have personally been archiving refs for articles I work on before, I notice that Web Archive sometimes messes up—so I recommend Archive.today for those if that is a problem. BarntToust 21:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
IA is restricted on my institution's laptops, so I'm trying to find a workaround. Trying to archive ref 3 just gives me a "this URL is invalid" message. EF5  22:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Say the word, I'll put the review on hold for you until a better time. I'll look at ref 3 myself to see about that. BarntToust 01:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
I'll definitely be able to get them archived, it's just a matter of how long that process will take. EF5  01:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Was IP-blocked for a few days, sorry. Are archived references required? Based on what I have access to I'm seriously not sure if I can get those ~15 references archived, although I also don't want this failed on inactivity. I'll bring it up at WT:GA. EF5  13:32, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Generally, sufficient referencing on an article entails making sure sources are protected from link rot and the like. I have seen many GARs where this sort of thing is like, even if you don't have a few out for maybe a couple dozen or hundred done right, someone will point that out as a concern. IDK. could be just an WP:IMPLICIT requirement that is considered inherently required by many as part of having sufficient references. BarntToust 16:20, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
I asked at WT:GAN a few hours ago and everyone there said it wasn't necessarily a requirement; I'll still make an effort to archive those references but I don't know if it's a big-enough issue that the GAN nom should be held back. EF5  16:25, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
That's right. Only thing left for me to do is spotcheck five or so sources and I'll pass it. BarntToust 01:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)


### Good things
Prose is written nicely.
OR is not present.
I would love to see how neutrality could ever be a concern in an article about an inanimate object without much opportunity to subjectively interpret anything about it.
Copyvio check came up weird on first go, but second time was okay. Proper nouns (as per usual) contribute to much of Earwig's "concern".
Edit warring on an article about a 14 year old weather event didn't seem very likely, but I checked the revision history anyway and nothing wrong.
Infobox image is of actual tornado in-person, non-free but clearly falling under fair use policy since no free-use alternative has been located (or can actually be produced feasibly). Rest of images are government works, of basically all weather graphs and tornado aftermath images. Captions, and in this case when there, color keys, are there and proper.
MOS is as far as I can see adhered to.
Refs are fulfilling good article standards.
Spotchecks a.) ref 17 is talking about a church being hit, is YouTube video of broadcast by local media source. Verifies. b.) ref 22 is from same local news org, via their website. Verifies. c.) ref 4 is scientific journal talking about subject, where it is cited five times. Info verified. d.) ref 41 is from Alabama media company, about two deaths from this tornado. Verified. e.) ref 35 is from TV station, talking about death of Linda Boatner. Verified. BarntToust 01:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)