Talk:Monsoon trough

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Monsoon trough 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.
May 5, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Hurricanes
 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.
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 Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Assessment

Very high start, almost B-class. It needs some copyediting, and more on how the monsoon trough contributes to tropical cyclone development. Everything else is solid. --Coredesat talk! 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why oceanic streamline graphics?

There's not a monsoon in sight in those graphics. Why are they there? Tmangray 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The monsoon trough (ITCZ) is depicted by the convergence in the streamline pattern. This is now stated within the caption of the images. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

By definition, ANY line of low pressure in a monsoon regime is a monsoon trough. To speak of THE monsoon trough then is erroneous, unless one is speaking of the ITCZ which merges into the Asian summer monsoon. The article is confusing in this regard. The relationship of the ITCZ to the monsoon should be mentioned, as should non-ITCZ monsoon troughing. Tmangray 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned. The article has been reworded to clarify any possibly confusion. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reassessment

Downgraded to start. The article is quite confusing and full of unexplained jargon, and doesn't clearly explain what the monsoon trough is. --Coredesat 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

An attempt has been made the clarify the article. The only unexplained jargon I saw was vorticity, which is just jargon for atmospheric spin. Hopefully the current wording has improved the situation. Let me know if there is any more jargon that needs explanation. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Seasons ill defined

eg in start of 'Movement' section what does 'late summer' mean if you don't even define which hemisphere you're talking about. There's cultural bias here. People in the affected part of the world commonly talk in terms of different seasons like 'the dry season' or 'the hot season'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.110.42 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It was meant to be broadly stated. Late summer means August in the northern Hemisphere, and February in the southern Hemisphere. I thought I wasn't introducing a POV when writing the text in that manner. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?


At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time.

[edit] GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    A couple issues here. First, words like "Indeed..." don't sound encyclopediac. Also, there are entire sections without a single Wikilink. Overall, though, the writing is good.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Seems factually accurite, although two sections don't have any sources, so I have no way of verifying the information.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I'd like some more information, as it is slightly short in its current state.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Overall, the article is generally good, but there are some issues that need to be taken care of. Thus, I've put the article on-hold. Good work so far, and good luck getting it to GA status. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Added additional clarification, and a couple references to the missing paragraph. You mention some of the sections are short. What more would you like to see added that is missing? I was worried I had gotten wordy with the article, because there are not many sources regarding the dynamics and behavior of the monsoon trough. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, it's starting to look better. I'd like to see some more information regarding movement, and maybe some more about the depressions. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Added more information, particularly to monsoon depression. The added information didn't bulk up the movement section very much. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to find much else...but I'll keep searching. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Much better. I can safely pass GA. Good work! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)