Talk:Tropical cyclone track forecasting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Tropical cyclone track forecasting 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 6, 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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Creation

A chunk of information from the tropical cyclone forecasting article was split off into this article. Thegreatdr 12:50, 5 May 2007 (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] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 4, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail, the lead needs some work. Now while it is proper grammar, it is not best to start an article like that. The entire thing sounds a bit jargony.
2. Factually accurate?: Needs many more references.
3. Broad in coverage?: All of the sections need expansion. I suggest adding new sections about its history and extensive studies that have been done.
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Include a normal NHC track map.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The "extensive" studies that have been done involve the final 10% of the puzzle in track forecasting, the beta effect, which I thought I touched on in this article. In my eyes, that means it deserves 10% of the article space. If I didn't dedicate enough space to it, I'll expand that poriton. I believe everything in this article is covered by the included references, but I will double check. What jargon needs to be cleared up, in your opinion? What is a "normal" NHC track map? I can tell you this much...if they use a track map to do their forecast by hand, it's not through the use of the track charts on their website. It's all done electronically through ATCF now, and really has been for the past 16 years. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is still very small. I just feel it needs quite a bit more conten before it becomes a GA. It is a good, soild B-class, but it is not ready to be a GA. I rather see each sentence referenced than a whole paragraph with a reference at the end. As for the jargon, it is not as bad as I initially thought. You need to say what the "Beta effect" is, otherwise it's o.k. As for the NHC track map, I mean just a track chart that they release in their packages. Mind you that I'm not a meterologist, just a weather nerd and spotter who knows quite a bit about severe weather, I just monitor tropical weather. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I have now dealt with the beta effect, which will have its own wikipedia article soon since it relates to any fluid. I will search for a graphic that includes the NHC track as well as the suite of models used by them, which can also be included within the model article. Which section seems thinnest to you? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
All that I'm asking for is a normal NHC track map for a tropical cyclone released in their graphics package. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 23:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The article has been significantly beefed up, per your other suggestions, and the track graphic has been added. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
My word, it looks great. I didn't think it was possible to do that much editing in such a short time. That is why I failed the article instead of putting it on hold. I'll go ahead and pass it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
If I have an hour at my disposal, I can do a lot for an article on here. Your suggestions steered me to the history section, and I did a search on single station forecasting of hurricanes, and stumbled across the CPHC website which had exactly what I was looking for. Luckily, I knew where to find an image from inside an eye, which helps graphically. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 6, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)