Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Surface weather analysis

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 17:31, 25 May 2007.

[edit] Surface weather analysis

Since there have been positive comments on the talk page since it earned GA, and no reported problems so far, I have nominated this article for FA, which would be the first FA for one of the core meteorology project articles. It appears stable. Thegreatdr 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - inadequate sourcing. Addhoc 16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Where specifically do you think additional sourcing is needed? Thegreatdr 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • For example - the first three citations link to a non-functioning website and the publisher of this site isn't mentioned. Addhoc 17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Replaced the dead links with a primary source. Thegreatdr 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Addhoc 09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Found a random cite book ref and changed it to fit the ref format used in the remainder of the article. Thegreatdr 21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment; you mention the use of SWA in aviation in the lede, but the article never goes on to discuss this subject; perhaps a short section is in order. Also, in the first section, you cite the time standardisation info as (W.S.R.), but you never state what this refers to. This cite should be converted to a ref format. Laïka 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed the reference to standard time. Thanks for catching that problem with aviation being missed in the body of the article...will add that shortly. Thegreatdr 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • A section has been added for aviation. Thegreatdr 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support; ideally this image should be an SVG, but it's very tricky to make a copy of the image, given that the symbols used by the NOAA really are that pixellated, and the images themselves aren't really a reason to oppose an FA so long as they add to it, which this one does. Laïka 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Its a good article, but I have just one question before I support, why is Dry Line bolded in the article? Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Other than it being also in the title of the section, there was no good reason. That part of the structure preexisted my upgrade of the article some months back. Since only fronts was bolded in such a manner, I have removed both bolded words/phrases. Thegreatdr 22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I would like to see a few more citations, some of the sections have none at all like the front section. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It should be more thoroughly referenced now. Let me know if you see any spots where additional references would be helpful. Thegreatdr 01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Support looks fine. I did not give this article as well of a look over as I should have, if you can get this copy-edited I will remove the conditional. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The article has come a long way since being placed up for FAC. DarthGriz98 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose; not at all ready for FAC. Inadquate WP:LEAD, numerous short stubby sections, headings use special character (/) (see WP:MSH), large chunks of uncited text in history, inconsistent wikilinking (first occurrences should be linked), numerous terms introduced for which red links should be created or articles should already exist, WP:MOSNUM issues on temperature ranges, multiple See also templates at head of section which should be combined. I suggest an extended stint at WP:PR to prepare the article for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed the problems with the wikilinks, special character, and the one spot where I saw multiple seealsos in the same section. I believe I fixed the problem with the one temperature range listed. More references have been added to the history section, as requested. I combined a couple of the stubby sections into other related sections. Worked on the lead some as well. Which links/articles that are not linked to you think should be created? Is there anything left that is problematic with the lead? I need more than inadequate to go on. Thegreatdr 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Why is the heading Synoptic Scale Features all in caps (see WP:MSH — and why are those terms not defined until a later section? Reference formatting is not consistent at all; I can't discern which style is used. Please see WP:CITE/ES. Some retrieval dates are wikilinked; others not. Solo years should not be wikilinked. Short, stubby sections have now been replaced by some massive paragraphs; for example, the middle of the Fronts section. Does it make sense that no terms used in "Plotted symbols on weather maps" or "Pressure centers" are wiki-linked? There are also a lot of terms in "Fronts" that aren't linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The various fronts have now been wikilinked. All dates within refs are now wikilinked. The massive paragraphs and lead section have been restructured per specific comments in the peer review page. The subheading is also fixed. Thegreatdr 14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1a, 1c and 2a. The lead, inadequate in scope and length, provides ample evidence that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing, preferably by someone with fresh eyes.
  • "Specific", not "specified", I think.
  • "The first weather maps in the 19th century were drawn in order to devise a theory on storm systems.[2]" A number of problems. So there were weather maps in the 18th century, but they weren't drawn for this purpose? (Needs proper use of commas to convey the intended meaning.) "In order to" is my pet hate. Why use three words when just "to" will do? Are you sure the maps were drawn for the purpose of devising a theory? Reference 2 doesn't" say that at all.
  • "such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, cloud cover, and others"—Why two subset terms: one at the start and one at the end?
  • "The data are measurements"—No, they're the result of measurements.
  • "the map's domain"—no, just "the area".

That's the first half of the para. Tony 09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Tony. A bad reference was mistakenly left in during the reorganization of the lead yesterday. That problem was easily fixed. If you know of weather maps drawn in the 18th century (1701-1800), please let me know and provide an appropriate citation. The small word problems you noted have been fixed. Thegreatdr 14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Tony, this article could use a good copy-edit by somebody not familiar with the article. I won't withdraw my support because I think it can be done, but it still needs editing work before it can be FA. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • But you lodged a Support of the article above ?? 1a (compelling prose) is a requirement for FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I did not give the text as well as a look over as I had thought in addition to the comments I had about citations. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am starting to give the text a look over tonight, but I would suggest enlisting the help of the League of Copyeditors. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Comments made at this articles recently started peer review. Leave any responses there please.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article has come a long way since peer review started. Check out the changes and see what you think. Thegreatdr 18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Further comment—It's not hard to find problems in the prose, still. Take this one: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but they can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits into two streams, with the resultant mesoscale convective system (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." Hyphen problems (three, I think); far too long; redundant words. Tony 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Parsed the run-on sentence and slightly reworded to make it sound more encyclopedaic. Thegreatdr 01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Support All of my suggested improvements have been made during peer review. I see no reason not to support this article as a Featured Article anymore.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.