Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado

Wind speed

I don't see any mention of wind speed in the citation, how would they possibly figure this out 250 years ago. I would imagine the speed is derived from the Fujita scale and according to the MOS:UNIT it should have SI units primary. Avi8tor (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Violation unlikely (36.7%, no search engine)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is very focused on the topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article's history shows no edit wars or major instability. However, @Cocobb8: tagged "more citations needed" though did not elaborate their reasons. The usage definition should not apply to this article per six reference and the article's length seems fine, and "individual unreferenced statements" should be tagged cn. I have not checked for verifiability. Perhaps wrong template used? Cocobb8, if you can explain the reasons for tagging, that would greatly help my review.
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.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.

Well-written

Lede

• Date of occurrence and location it affected is missing from lede

• a 77-paragraph detailed study by German scientist Gottlob Burchard Genzmer, which was published one year after the tornado occurred. → "77-paragraph detailed study" change to "detailed 77-paragraph study" , "which was published one year after the tornado occurred" delete "which was"

• "several tree branches were believed to have been thrown into the atmosphere" → change "were believed to have been" to reportedly

• "Large hail, reportedly reaching 15 centimetres (6 in) in diameter covered the ground, caused significant crop and property damage, killed dozens of animals, and injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." → "Large hail, reportedly reaching 15 centimetres (6 in) in diameter covered the ground. The hail caused significant crop and property damage, killed dozens of animals, and injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." break in two sentence

Body

• "and uprooted oak trees and beech trees." → "and began uprooting oak and beech trees."
• "The tornado escalated into F2–F3 intensity as it threw two children" → "It escalated into F2–F3 intensity, throwing two children"
• "Several geese were "smashed" by hail around this time as well, and the tornado grew" → "Around this time, several geese were "smashed" by hail, and the tornado grew"
• Is there a name for the lake mentioned in the first paragraph? Perhaps Genzmer's description has it
• "the tornado" is used in excess, so avoid that repetitive language in para 2
• "The tornado increased in severity as it tore the bark from an oak tree at F4 intensity" → "The tornado intensified, tearing the bark from an oak tree at F4 intensity"
• Para 4: "oak and beech tree forest" → "oak and beech forest"
• Canzow is the settlement just west of Woldegk where the article described damage, it's probably worth mentioning
• "the tornado struck an airborne flock of geese, killing some and injuring 60–100 geese" close paraphrasing needs attention. Try "Further to the northeast, the tornado caught a flock of geese in flight, killing some and injuring between 60 and 100 geese.

References & verifiability

Lede

• The Patowary ref is cited as a news article, though I have strong doubts. First, every article is authored by the same person, and the author's linked profile leads me to speculate this source is a blog. At the end of the blog, it cites the ECSS 2015 conference and Norddeutscher Rundfunk, which are already referenced in this article. Per Wikipedia's policy on blogs, Patowary ref must be removed and replaced if necessary.

This may be a similar case with the "Vista al Mar" ref

• T11 claim supported by European Severe Weather Database, does not speak of wind speed. Can you include a reference for that?

• "Most of the information known about this tornado came from a 77-paragraph detailed study by German scientist Gottlob Burchard Genzmer, which was published one year after the tornado occurred." : Genzmer's ref is unnecessary, Strüber of NDR went with "56-page" so can we stick with that?

• "... injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." : the two refs afterwards aren't necessary once the contents in the body are verified (with the same refs).

Body

• Para 1 and 2 exclusively cite the ECSS ref so one in-line ref at the end of each para would suffice
• "the lake's water rose in what was likely a seiche and then retreated around the time of the tornado", no mention of a seiche in the ref
• The database in-line ref immediately after the 3rd sentence of para 3 isn't needed
• The ESSL ref assigns the mansion damage F5, while NDR source says the basis for F5 was "oak stumps torn from the ground". Vista al Mar appears to be a blog. Database ref doesn't explicitly say it is maximum damage, is this screenshot part of a larger archived database?
• "After destroying the mansion, the tornado quickly weakened to F1 and left a 500-metre (550 yd) wide path of light damage in a forest." unreferenced but the corresponding ref is probably ECSS
• Entirety of the last paragraph cites ECSS so only one in-line citation required at the end

MOS

• WP:Overcite issue addressed above
• Please include the original url and archive date of the European Severe Weather Database ref
• Norddeutscher Rundfunk ref is missing publication date

Coverage

Fine

Overall

This is a really interesting albeit short article. There's problems with some of the references here, and the prose can be further refined. The nominator has another seven days to address the GA concerns before I can pass this review.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)