Talk:2023 Selma tornado/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: EF5 (talk · contribs) 14:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Ca (talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I will be reviewing this article as part of WP:GARC. I know little about meteorology, so please let me know if I am making mistakes. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

As such, a large 5% risk for tornadoes was introduced for most of the lower Tennessee Valley, including portions of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, southern Tennessee, and northwestern South Carolina for at least a conditional threat of brief tornadoes. Does the "conditional threat of brief tornadoes" apply to all listed states or just SC? This sentence is confusing.

All states listed, that's what the "5% risk for tornadoes" is for. E_F⁵ 17:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be reworded to "As such, a large 5% risk for at least a conditional threat of brief tornadoes was introduced for most of the lower Tennessee Valley, including portions of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, southern Tennessee, and northwestern South Carolina." for concision? Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:09, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — E_F⁵ 01:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selma, the origin point of the Civil Rights era marches to Montgomery in the 1960s, was "brought together" by the tornado, which hit the town just days before Martin Luther King Jr. day.[9] This sentence feels awkward. Recommend in-text attribution of the quote. Or even better, I recommend elaborating on how the town was "brought together".

This is currently being discussed at the DYKN so I can't really do much about it right now. E_F⁵ 12:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I feel like the repeated mentions of trees snapping is excessive. Every step of the tornado's way, the article describes the trees as being damaged. I would recommend them to be condensed into a single general sentence.

Done. E_F⁵ 12:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely optional: It might be just me, I don't really see the supposedly visible paths in File:Selma, AL EF2 tornado track Landsat 8 Aerial.jpg. Perhaps you can use one of image annotation templates to mark where the path begins. {{image frame}}, for example.

Done I've changed the image to make the scarring clearer.

Spotchecks

A skim through the references section doesn't reveal any red flags. There is a Forbes Contributor source, but the author is a reputable figure with a Wikipedia article (J. Marshall Shepherd).
On January 11, the Storm Prediction Center outlined a level 1/Marginal risk across the mid-South valid for the overnight and early morning hours. Although the environment was initially capped, conditions were expected to become more conducive for severe weather given the approach of a mid-level trough and a gradually moistening airmass Verified
By October 2023, debris was removed from all residential properties within the city limits of Selma. Verified
James Perkins Jr., who was the mayor of Selma at the time of the tornado,[49] stated that power in the city was "shot". Verified
A mandatory curfew was enacted in Selma after the tornado. Verified
the tornado damaged several mobile homes and pushed them off their foundations. A frame home sustained minor damage in this area. Damage along this initial path segment was rated EF1. The tornado retained EF1 intensity as it moved across SR 22 north of Beloit ✗ Fail I believe an incorrect source was cited.

Done, replaced. E_F⁵ 14:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approximately one-third of Selma sustained heavy damage from the tornado, ✗ Fail The source does not mention "one-thirds".

Done, replaced. E_F⁵ 14:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and emergency management agencies determined that the tornado damaged or destroyed a total of 17,000 structures, including 470 businesses. ✗ Fail The article only says "FEMA and Selma officials estimated that the tornado damaged 3,200 structures".

Done, reworded. E_F⁵ 14:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then-President Joe Biden authorized federal funds to be directed at recovery efforts in Selma less than a month after the event. Verified
she had also made a major disaster declaration immediately following the event. Partially Verified, the article quotes Rep. Sewell saying "“I am beyond thankful to President Biden for this GREAT NEWS! From the beginning, President Biden has worked swiftly to respond to our calls by expediting the major disaster declaration for the State of Alabama,”", but it does not mention the date the declaration was made. Does "expediting the major disaster declaration" mean that the declaration was already made and Biden is simply expediting its enforcement, or that the declaration needs to be approved by him?

I believe it's the date the deceleration was made. 14:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure on how I use the Damageviewer website, but I will assume the claims are true.
As it crossed SR 14, an outbuilding was completely destroyed and a metal free-standing pole was bent to the ground, with damage in this area being rated EF2. After undergoing some re-intensification, the tornado then impacted a small residential area along Parkway Drive. Mostly Verified, but the two sources do not say anything about a pole of any kind.

Done, added source. E_F⁵ 14:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"In all, the tornado caused an estimated total of damages that totaled in excess of $9 million (2023 USD)." is verified in the sense that that is the amount of money that FEMA granted, but I think it is shaky to say that that is the actual monetary damage caused. Is FEMA grants give full compensation to those affected? (also the claim is only found in lead, so I recommend adding it in the body)
A makeshift American Red Cross shelter was also set up inside of the Selma High School to provide residents with food and water. Verified
Roads in Selma were shut down due to concerns over downed power lines and trees falling on roads. Verified
...and continued for over a year after the tornado Verified

Other

Article is stable Y
authorship verified Y
a wide variety of sources cited Y
No major sources missing, at least from my search Y
Earwig returns clean Y

@Ca: I believe I've addressed everything. :) E_F⁵ 15:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will be performing few more spotchecks and likely passing the article tonight. Ca ^{talk to me!} 23:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; the failed spotchecks are a bit concerning, so I will be performing further spotchecks to ensure verifiability. Ca ^{talk to me!} 13:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]