Talk:Climate of Florida

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Climate of Florida article.
Article policies
Good article Climate of Florida has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on June 5, 2007.
WikiProject Meteorology
 This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

Contents

[edit] Creation of the page/close to GA?

A graph and a couple images have now been added, so there should be enough graphics for the article. Can anyone else find other obvious problems which would prevent GA? Thegreatdr 21:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks at least close to GA-worthy to me, although it would probably be good to add celsius figures to the fahrenheit as well. I would really like to see more information; it's a little thin in really grasping the overall climate of Florida, but as it stands I think it's pretty good. bob rulz 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I could always look up and see if there are references concerning winter/spring fog along the west and northeast coast as well as the July dust across the south. What more would you like to see, in addition to those topics? Thegreatdr 12:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really understand this sentence: "During the transition seasons, fronts regularly sweep through the state from October through May, which keeps conditions dry, particularly over the peninsula. " It seems like either a run-on or a mix of two sentences that somehow got merged. -RunningOnBrains 17:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fixed that. Removed the transition seasons portion and start the sentence with "Between October and May..." Thegreatdr 18:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The fog blurb has also been added. Thegreatdr 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
A paragraph on African dust has now been added. What else is missing and/or in need of expansion? Thegreatdr 18:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


I think it should pass but I think the Afican Dust outbrakes section should be intergrated into the wind section.

It has been done. Thank you for the review. =) Thegreatdr 05:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Oscillation

(for the future. Nothing to do with GA). The article correctly takes La Nina and El Nino into consideration. However, we are all (local articles too) stuck (as the article is) by quoting average temperatures (for example) based on both phenomena since this condition was not known until the 21st century or so. IMO all new weather statistics should take both conditions into consideration so that temperatures and rainfall are given for each phenomenon separately. Comparing this years temperatures with last is silly in view of our new knowledge. Okay for your local newscaster ("Wow! Ain't it awful?"), but not so good for an encyclopedia. As I write this, we are in a La Nina cycle. Temperatures and rainfall should be compared against La Ninas in the past, not against averages or El Ninos. Student7 (talk) 16:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Snowfall

I readded the earliest and latest occurrences of snow within the article. By earliest, I mean the earliest in the fall season and by latest, the latest in the spring season. Should we be keeping track of the latest occurrence of any weather event in this article, or just the general climatology? I'm advocating for climatology, due to the name of the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have added an article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Who has seen the wind?

While I agree with what has been said about tornados being "weak," it really a) needs a reference, b) needs something a little clearer for weather experts. I suspect F0 and F1 for "usual" tornados, but higher ones for spin-offs from hurricanes, c) while I don't want to play chamber of commerce here, mention of tornados to people living where they don't experience any or many is like saying "a little earthquake" or a "little" nuclear explosion. It tends to create a "little" hysteria. I don't know how to circumvent that. I guess we tell it like it is (pretty much the way it is now). Student7 (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)