Talk:Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. Nomination date: 2007-03-16

[edit] New article creation

This information was split off from tropical cyclone rainfall climatology in order to help out with its length. There also appeared to be enough information to create a separate article with this name. Thegreatdr 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick review

A few things I found, by quickly doing a review of the article:

• The article begins talking about the US first, then begins to talk more globally. Shouldn't it use inverted pyramid organization and talk about the global impacts first, then talk about the United States' data? (In other words, would it be better to flip the two paragraphs of the lede?) Done. Thegreatdr 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• "Between 1970-2004, inland flooding from tropical cyclones caused a majority of the fatalities in the United States.[1]" - you mean weather-related deaths, TC-related deaths, or deaths in general? It is confusing to the unaware reader. Done. Thegreatdr 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ref for Stan's casualty toll (the TCR will do, I imagine.) Done. Thegreatdr 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• "found that some tropical cyclones can have their highest rainfall rates in the rear quadrant" - left rear or right rear?
  • He had to mean right rear. The text was not this specific. I made the change, but may need a new reference which states this. Thegreatdr 15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is the discussion about the effects of topography in rainfall by Riehl too?
  • Yes. Riehl does mention terrain not being considered for his rainfall calculation. Thegreatdr 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ref for the "Storm size" section needed.
  • There is one in the section already. I could hunt for a second one. Thegreatdr 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I missed it the first time I went around. Does it cover the entire paragraph? If so, then it should be moved to the end of the paragraph. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Double-checking: is the entire "Slow/looping motion on rainfall magnitude" section referenced by Riehl?
  • Except for the first sentence, the section up until the reference was derived from Riehl's table. Thegreatdr 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• "and outside topographic features" may be a bit too technical for a non-specialist reader. Changed to hills and mountains. Thegreatdr 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ref for "Vertical wind shear" needed as well. Done. Thegreatdr 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• While I think I understand what the "Interaction with frontal boundaries/upper level troughs" is saying, a rainfall or radar pic there would be incredibly useful.
• Double-checking: The HRD is part of AOML, right? I added that in to clarify further. -Yes. Thegreatdr 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• "There is a definite advantage to using the forecast track with r-CLIPER because it could be run out for as far in the future as a tropical cyclone forecast track is extended" - should it mention that the forecast is usually 120 hours, or not? Not sure if that is the standard forecast timeframe nowadays, or if it is still three days.
  • It is five days. Made the change. Thegreatdr 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Expand the TRaP acronym, at least when it is used for the first time. Done. Thegreatdr 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Wikipedia, the GFDL is usually associated with something completely different. I've added a link to the relevant model, but that's something to keep in mind for the future. (On that line of thought, should the link point to GFDL CM2.X instead?)
• While I can assume why, I'm not sure everyone can figure out immediately why the Kraft rule of thumb was called that way. When and who made it would be ideal here.
  • This has been a surprising difficult factoid to find. It will require some e-mails to see if anyone has the original reference. Even in recent works, when people write about the Kraft rule, no reference is provided. Thegreatdr 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• If the entire text from the 16-in rule of thumb section came from your presentation, put the reference at the end. Otherwise make a copy of it on your website and tag it here, both so we're not the only record of it (which would be awful if someone modified a number), and so we can reference it in case it is indeed changed. (And also, to satisfy WP:V requirements.)
  • The original AMS hurricane conference link (which mentions the 16" amount and related information) appears to be broken. I'll see if I can download into my research section on the HPC page tonight. Thegreatdr 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, I like it - it is coming very well. Maybe the book links can be modified slightly to use {{cite book}} and the footnote system, or we could try something new and use the Harvard referencing system instead. (It is seldom used because it is more difficult to set up.) Either way, if those things above are addressed, it should get GA status easily. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)