Talk:Storm Kristin/GA1

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

Nominator: Novixoxoxo (talk · contribs) 18:09, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: David Eppstein (talk · contribs) 00:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Meteorological history" has no sources. The second half of the second paragraph is sourced only to a 2012 publication, which cannot source any details of the storm's development. None of the first sentence of the third paragraph is covered by its source. Later in the same section, the claim of a gust of 178km/h failed verification (the source said 177) and the source says nothing about a damaged anemometer.

In "Effect of climate change", an in-text attribution to "Manning et al. (2018)" is sourced by a paper published by Manning et al. in 2023.

Moving later randomly in the article. I could not verify "The National Emergency and Civil Protection Authority in Portugal elevated the country to Level 4 (Maximum State of Readiness) in the 24 hours prior to landfall, the highest possible tier of mobilisation" from its source. "The AEMET issued a red alert for the interior of Pontevedra" has a source that does not mention Pontevedra. And I could not verify the claim "It was estimated that 170 of the 180 companies in the Meirinhas parish lost their roof, as a result of storm Kristin.": the source led me to a page full of headlines rather than a specific article, and "companies" is unlikely to be the correct word here.

Pulling back to the bigger picture, I think the article's blow-by-blow collection of news reports and details of damage numbers from individual small towns in "Impact", and long collection of individual people who offered their best wishes in "Reactions", is a long way from meeting WP:GACR 3b's requirement that the article "stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". Additionally, much of the content appears to be a literal translation of its sources that obscures it's meaning; the "companies" example above is one such. Another is "sandbars in the northern zone were closed": it does not make sense to close a sandbar; one cannot navigate a boat onto a sandbar.

I did not use Earwig to check for close paraphrasing as most sources are not in English but I strongly suspect many passages are direct unattributed translations. As one example out of many, the article's "A large part of the Leiria National Forest got devastated by Kristin" appears to be a direct translation of the title of its source.

Sadly, I think the serious sourcing issues (both lack of sourcing and worse, failures of source-content integrity), especially near the start of the article (GACR 2b) and the excessive detail in its later sections make this far from ready for GA status (WP:GAFAIL #1).

—David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)