Talk:Prevailing winds

Prevailing winds has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: General Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the General meteorology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pronounciation

Prevailing winds is pronounced: prĕ-văl-īň wīnds

Expansion

This article has been significantly expanded, taking advantage of recently improved wikipedia articles to bulk up its content. Let me know if anyone seeing any significant gaps in this article's coverage. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Prevailing winds/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article, should be done in a couple of days. Sasata (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here are my initial set of comments. I think the prose needs some work to make the meterological concepts more readily accessible to the average reader who doesn't know anything about the subject (like me). I offer a number of phrasing tweaks for you to consider.

Lede

I was kind of confused by the definition in the very first sentence; so much so, that I looked elsewhere on the 'net for another definition to make sure I understood it properly. How about starting with something really basic and easy to understand like "In meteorology, prevailing winds are winds that blow predominantly from a single general direction." Then more specific ideas and situations can be gradually introduced. Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A region's prevailing and dominant winds often show global patterns of movement in the earth's atmosphere." What does this mean? Done Reworded the passage so it was less confusing, which didn't require much of a change. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the mid-latitudes, westerly winds are the rule and their strength is at the mercy of the polar cyclone." This fact is mentioned in the lead, but not again in the article– there shoudn't be anything in the lede that's not also in the article itself. Done I could see why it could appear that way. The text below has been corrected to account for your comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In areas with light wind regimes, the sea breeze/land breeze cycle is the most important to the prevailing wind." Suggest changing regimes to another word (conditions?); in what way is this cycle the most important? Is it the most important contributor to the force of the prevailing wind? Done Made a small change to the wording to make the sentence more understandable. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In areas which have variable terrain, mountain and valley breezes dominate the wind pattern." I can understand how this is true, but am not sure what this has to do with prevailing winds. Maybe link this sentence and the previous one with a semicolon to more clearly associate the two conditions. Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wind roses are tools used to determine the prevailing wind at any particular location" -> How about "Wind roses are tools used to determine the direction of the prevailing wind." Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth has inconsistent capitalization throughout the article Done Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowledge of the prevailing wind can lead to the development of prevention methods to soil erosion of agricultural land," awkward sentence construction Done Reworded sentence to be less awkward. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Determination for a location

suggest linking cardinal direction Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trades and their impact

"The trade winds act as the steering flow for tropical cyclones that form over world's oceans." "Steering flow" is a redlink, so perhaps it would be more informative to just briefly explain that these trade winds are the main determinant of the direction of tropical cyclones. Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westerlies and their impact

why is westerlies capitalized but easterlies is not; actually I see now that again the capitalization is inconsistent throughout Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The strongest westerly winds in the middle latitudes can come in the Roaring Forties," -> would "can originate" be a clearer wording? Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Westerlies play an important role in carrying the warm, equatorial waters ..." Do the winds really affect the flow of water that much? My uniformed intuition says that these winds would only affect the flow of water at the surface. (Comment) Yes...and the references provided indicated that the Gulf Stream in particularly is driven by wind-related stresses. In fact, ENSO with its related El Nino and La Nina phases has recently been correlated with sustained bursts and weaknesses in equatorial westerly winds, over a period of months, which alters the sea surface temperature configuration in the tropics. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polar easterlies

Shouldn't North and South pole be capitalized? Done Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... and subsides at the pole creating surface high-pressure areas" -> is "high pressure surface areas" a better word order? {Comment) No, in fact it's improper. The alternatives are anticyclone for high pressure area, or high pressure systems. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea and land breezes

"In areas where the wind flow is light, this mechanism is an important factor in a location's prevailing winds." What mechanism? Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If the environmental wind field is greater than 8 knots..." Clarify what is meant by environmental wind field. Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...forces the daytime sea breeze to die down." die down -> dissipate (less idiomatic) Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If the land cools below that of the adjacent sea surface temperature," ->"land temperature cools down" Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...setting up a land breeze," setting up -> establishing Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circulation in elevated regions

"...the wind circulation between mountains and valleys is the most important to the prevailing winds." -> the most important contributor Done Thegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...substantially distort the airflow by increasing friction and acting..." -> "by increasing friction between x and y and acting" DoneThegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

barrier jet is a redlink, so perhaps a brief definition in parentheses (a narrow band of strong winds resulting from an obstruction such as a mountain range) DoneThegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This conditions is dangerous.." -> "These conditions are" DoneThegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on precipitation

Link or define orographic, condensation Done They've been linked. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effect on flying animal migration

The last sentence about bird migration seems to be about the effect of bird migration on wind, rather than vice versa (as the section header implies) Done Line removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...or the planting of trees which act as wind breaks." Passive voice, how about leaving out "the planting of" Done Thegreatdr (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've dealt with all the issues listed above. Let me know if any more needs to be done. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article prose has improved, and now meets all GA criteria - it's ready for promotion. Thanks for your contribution! Sasata (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is reasonably well-written; article complies with MOS.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
Well-referenced, sources reliable. I checked a few of the online references at random and the article accurately represented what the sources claimed.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
All images are either public domain or have appropriate free use license.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Atmospheric circulation

This article is talking essentially about the same phenomenon as Atmospheric circulation and therefore a merger of two articles should be considered.

abhishek singh (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. Atmospheric circulation talks about the 3D movement of air, while this article talks about the 2D movement of air at the Earth's surface. This article is a subarticle of that one. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Prevailing winds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global wind patterns merger

This article had already been merged from 28 June 2017 to 24 June 2017, when the creator of this article, Benjamin Trovato, undid the merger and removed the merger notice. We had failed to come to an agreement (on my talk page) on whether the article should be merged into Prevailing winds. My arguments for such a merger were:

It was a worse version of the Prevailing winds article. It had no sources, no layout and thoroughly poor style, and it covered the same topic. It's not the norm to have a bad article serve as an "overview article" on Wikipedia. If one wanted an "overview article", as Benjamin claimed was his reason for the article, one would create an article named "Outline of prevailing winds" as is the norm on Wikipedia. However, it's not necessary for such a small article as Prevailing winds. Indeed, Prevailing winds is rated as a good article.
I also advised Benjamin that if he didn't like the Prevailing winds article or felt it was missing something, to edit it. This is what Wikipedia encourages.
Benjamin has tried to justify the lack of sources on the article by writing this in the References section. SpikeballUnion (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]