Talk:Tropical cyclogenesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical cyclogenesis article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical cyclogenesis 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.
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.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.
The following comments have been left for this page:

Not really sure what to do... perhaps send to peer review for more input? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (edit)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Importance

Seeing as without tropical cyclogenesis, there would be no tropical cyclones, I have raised this article to top-class. --Coredesat talk! 05:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but there are other things that you wouldn't have tropical cyclones without - Coriolis force, thunderstorms, etc. CrazyC83 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll give you that, but this article discusses the process of tropical cyclone formation. Without the process, there would be no tropical cyclones. The Coriolis force and thunderstorms are just factors in tropical cyclone formation. --Coredesat 02:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant update

The references have been changed to be more descriptive. External links have been added at the bottom, which relate to the text. Several images have been added. The page has been reorganized. Thegreatdr 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meter or metre?

I noticed that the spelling of meter was changed in this article. Is metre less POV than meter? Which is used more internationally? If metre is used more often, many TC-related articles need to have this spelling changed to the British spelling. Thegreatdr 18:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter as long as you're consistent. Spelling a word a certain way isn't really POV, since everyone knows there are alternate spellings. --Coredesat (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Just trying avoid a WP:LAME type of problem which comes up on web pages from time to time. Thegreatdr 15:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, since you're the one who started the article, you get to pick, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Titoxd(?!?) 03:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Included global stats

Per comments made to the extratropical cyclone article, I realized that the global TS/HU/IH stats were not listed anywhere in this article. Now they are. Thegreatdr 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

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 majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs inline citations:

  1. "Although the formation of tropical cyclones is the topic of extensive ongoing research and is still not fully understood, there are six main requirements for tropical cyclogenesis: sufficiently warm sea surface temperatures, atmospheric instability, high humidity in the lower to middle levels of the troposphere, enough Coriolis force to develop a low pressure center, a preexisting low level focus or disturbance, and low vertical wind shear." This is the basis for the entire article, and it would be beneficial to see an inline citation documenting who stated this.Y Done Thegreatdr (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. "Cyclone Agni would come within a mere 40 miles from the Equator in 2004." On the actual article about the cyclone, it mentions fifty miles, so it would be best to add a citation for both of the articles.Y Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

  1. This isn't required for GA, but I tagged a few images to be moved to Wikimedia Commons. If you have an account, consider moving the images over.
  2. Consider expanding the lead some to better summarize the article.
  3. If possible, see if some of the sections can be merged in "Unusual areas of formation". There are too many subsections for the amount of content and would benefit from merging the information together, perhaps by larger regions.Y Done Thegreatdr (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Added an important line to the lead as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and looks good after addressing the above issues. 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 updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)