Jump to content

Talk:Reed Timmer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contradiction tag

[edit]

IP editor 204.98.124.205 (who added the tag here), I'd like to discuss the tag with you. Timmer did marry Molina in 2015, as stated in both Timmer and Molina's articles, but their divorce in 2018 I could not find a reliable source for. The closest I could get was Timmer and Molina recalling a tornado near Wray, Colorado in 2016 but does not mention the divorce. Therefore, I did remove the divorce information from Timmer's article but not Molina's, that's what I believe as to why the {{Contradicts other}} tag was added. However, if the divorce information were to be re-added to Timmer's article, then it'll have to be added with a reliable source (I couldn't find one), otherwise, I'm not sure what to do. Any ideas? ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did find this, but I'm not sure if it's reliable or not... ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there’s no reliable source, shouldn’t it also be removed from Molina’s? 204.98.124.205 (talk) 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking; I think that's the best outcome in this case. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 12:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Reconrabbit 12:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Tails Wx (talk · contribs) 18:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm taking on this review. Reconrabbit 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this GAN, Reconrabbit! I appreciate it, and I'm pretty sure I've resolved all your concerns below. :) ~ Tails Wx 01:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Want to let you know that I did read your changes to the article, but there might be some delay in finishing the review. I've been pretty sick the past few days. Reconrabbit 02:55, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. Wishing you a speedy recovery! ~ Tails Wx 12:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tails Wx I'm a bit better now. Some more notes. Reconrabbit 14:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tails Wx I think I'm done for my part here, just have questions on source 28 and if anything was omitted in 2007, 2008 and 2014 since there seems to be some major event happening every year except for those. Reconrabbit 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose notes

[edit]
  • "Tornado warned-storm" or "tornado-warned storm"?
Yeah, it's "tornado-warned storm". ~ Tails Wx 01:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under 2019-present, the phrase "a Dominator 3" is used. Are there multiple Dominator 3s?
Nope, there's just one! Replaced "a" with "the". ~ Tails Wx 01:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Running into some WP:PROSELINE writing under the storm chasing career, but the paragraphs are large enough for it to not make a major impact.

Broadness

[edit]
  • A pretty clear timeline of the notable events in Reed's life, but lacks cohesion. I can see that being a consequence of the type of references used that are all "top 5 closest calls" etc.
  • What did he do on Storm Chasers in 2007 (-2008?)? Did he do anything notable in 2014? (Not particularly relevant, hard to prove something didn't happen)

Focus

[edit]
  • Goes into detail on major events without repeating articles verbatim. checkY
  • Some concerns about due weight on his personal life, specifically his siblings' names and parents' divorce.
I did remove his siblings' names, but kept the info on his parents' divorce because it seemed...notable, in my opinion. ~ Tails Wx 01:02, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

[edit]
  • No ongoing or recent edit wars. checkY
  • Page is written without promotional language or an especially positive/negative perspective. checkY
[edit]
  • None found, all sources in English so no concern of translated copied material, other language Wikipedia articles have little to no overlap. checkY

References

[edit]
  • List style conforms to manual of style. checkY

Check sources based on this revision:

  • [1] I assume only one doctoral advisor is typically listed, but why Peter Lamb specifically? There are 2 others at the source and no indication of which matters more. checkY
  • [6] checkY
  • [9] checkY
  • [10] checkY
  • [11] checkY
  • [16] checkY Sentence describing the April 27, 2011 outbreak doesn't include the EF5 tornado this source supports. Now used only where specifically relevant, not to support already supported statements...
  • [26] checkY
  • [27] checkY
  • [28] checkY Rather than citing the book directly, I would use sources that mention the book such as Outside and Good Morning America. The whole subtitle isn't used in third party publications.
  • [32] Paywalled, skipping
  • [33] checkY
  • [41] checkY
  • [44] checkY Shows journalistic practices necessary to keep a Newsweek article here as a source.
  • [48] checkY
  • [56] checkY Use of Forbes contributor article is debatable but it isn't a particularly controversial statement. There is a Car and Driver article that briefly mentions Category 6 and it could be used to back this up.
  • [57] checkY Looks to be a decent Newsweek article, same as 44.
  • [61] checkY
  • [62] checkY

Original research

[edit]
  • All statements backed up by references. checkY

Images

[edit]
  • Images currently in the article are tagged with attribution and licenses. checkY
  • There was a photo of Reed Timmer in the article before but it was deleted. Out of scope here but keep that in mind.

Misc. notes

[edit]

I split his secondary education into two sentences since I felt it was too long compared to the rest of the article. Also, it was sitting on its own there. Reconrabbit 14:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 18:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
SRV Dominator 1, pictured in 2010
SRV Dominator 1, pictured in 2010
Improved to Good Article status by Tails Wx (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 24 past nominations.

~ Tails Wx 16:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reed_Timmer&oldid=1244624781"