Talk:Storm Prediction Center/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

There are two double redirects: Convective outlooks, Mesoscale discussion. Each of these redirects back to this article.
- I intended both of these to be section links, and have fixed the convective outlooks link. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
''Mesoscale discussions are issued to give information on a region that is becoming a severe weather threat and states whether a watch is likely and details thereof, as well as situations of isolated severe weather when watches are not necessary. Surely the severe weather threatens the region, rather than being the threat? Done

with the increased duties this unit became the National Severe Storms Forecast Center (NSSFC) in 1966 What increased duties were these?

The Day 3 Convective Outlook was first issued on an experimental basis in 2000, and was made an official product in 2001.[2] From 1995 to 2006 it was housed in the same building as the National Severe Storms Laboratory, after which it moved to the National Weather Center. This could be worded better, currently it reads as if the "Day 3 Convective Outlook" moved to the National Weather Center.n Done

There is a three-stage process in which the area, time period, and details of a severe weather forecast goes from more general to more specific while also, if warranted, increasing in severity. "More general to more specific"? Rather clumsy. Done
I'm not quite sure what to do about this one because that really is what the forecasts do...the threat area might start out with a general "central plains with a risk of large hail and tornadoes late this afternoon and evening" and by step three is pinned down to "western Kansas with the possibility of hail up to tennis ball size and isolated tornadoes, some significant, between 4 and 10 pm". More general to more specific is the only way I can think to phrase it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::Find other words than "more general and more specific". At the momeent that is not plain English. Try "from a brioad summary to more specific foprecast" Something like that. I didn't copy-edit it myself, becuawe I didn't want to change the meaning, but at the moement it is unclear and bad grammar.
I took a stab at it, but I have low confidence in what I achieved. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that is very good. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The categorical risks are general thunderstorms (brown line), "SEE TEXT" (label on map indicating potential for isolated severe storms or near-severe storms), "SLGT" (green line indicating slight risk of severe weather), "MDT" (red line indicating moderate risk of severe weather), and "HIGH" (fuchsia line indicating high risk of severe weather). Critical areas (referred to as "hatched areas" because of their representation on outlook maps) refer to a threat of increased storm intensity that is of "significant severe" (F2/EF2 or stronger tornado, 2 inches (5 cm) or larger hail, or 75 mph (120 km/h) winds or greater) level What is this "SEE TEXT"? This all looks rather messy. Please rework to explain the references to the maps better. Remember that the thumbnails are not highly readable to those with small screen displays.
Being as knowledgeable as I am on meteorology, I know too much about this to see what I can do to explain it better. Can I get some pointers? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
THis is addressed in my comments belwo. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

''Major events, such as large tornado outbreaks, are sometimes also possible on moderate risk days, but with greater uncertainty. These are not uncommon and are typically issued several times each month during the peak season. Presumably, "These are not uncommon" refers to the "A moderate risk day" warnings, not the "major events" Done

'~~'The Day 1 Convective Outlook, issued five times per day at 0600Z, although wikilinked, the Zulu time concept needs to be explained in the article.~~ Nearly done
The statement Convective outlooks are issued in Zulu time (also known as UTC), which is the same as the time in Greenwich, England. is factually incorrect. The time in (should be "at") Greenwich, England shouldn't be confused with Greenwich Mean Time. Between the last Sunday in October and the last Sunday in March, the time in or at Greenwich does coincide with GMT but at the momemnet we are on British summer time, one hour ahead. Just leave out the whole Greenwich bit.

Day 2 outlooks, issued twice daily at 06Z and 1730Z, refer to tomorrow's weather (12Z-12Z of the next calendar day) are 06Z and 12Z typos?
They are not. The day 2 outlooks issued April 7, 2010 would be the forecast for 12Z April 8th through 12Z April 9th. I'll clarify this concept better. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~You can't shorten 0600Z to 06Z, or 1200Z to 12Z. Apart from the inaccuracy, it is confusing to do so.~~

To what do the "SEE TEXT" labels refer in the table just below the Issuance and usage section? Do we actually need this? WEhat encyclopaedic value dioes this confusing and rather meaningless table have?

~~"SLGT" needs explanation~~
I attempted to clarify these two points with a "key" for the table, of sorts. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we have a table that refers to the convective otlooks. Why not use a graphioc of the table as shown at [1]. This includes the hatch and can be shrunk, thus avoiding the rather messy layout that we have at present. And it can sit underneath the two convective outlook maps quite neatly.

The message shown in the Example section needs some sort of caption, might be better as an image. It looks rather clumsy here. Likewise in the Weather watches section.
I don't know what to do about this one either...they are, quite literally, products issued and taken from the archives...the product is both the image and the text present, so it would do the example fault to remove the text. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is OR at the moment so it needs to go if you want GA status.
I put in a line at the end of each text example stating the source of the text. In all honesty, this article would be incomplete without them, so without them it would fail GA regardless. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right I see what you are trying to do. Why not use the whole image as available at [2] and [3]. This solves the problems, it can be shrunk lightly and placed alongside the relevant text, which would make for vastly improved comprehension. But you certainly cna't just copy the text and cut and past it into the article. I assume that NOAA imagery is public domain (US)? 08:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Well...Originally, it was shrunken and next to the text, and the graphic uploaded is the same used at those links. The only problem is my laptop has a larger monitor size than most computers, and other people were having problems with the text and picture overlapping. After I realized this, I moved them into the vertical format they are in now. Shrinking the image gives resolution problems of some kind (the lines start disappearing on the MD image, for example), and a graphics lab request to svg-ify the image never got completed. I'll put it back the way it was before to see if that works better though. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am looking into this, testing in my sandbox, back in a while. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm back - I think I have fixed it using Template:Quote box. There are lots of parameters which you can play with, including border colour. I set the font size to 85% should should be good enough. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All online sources are live

References appear reliable, although I note that all bar one are WP:SPS, and that one is written by an employee

References support the statements

~~The reconstructed message mentioned above, appear to be WP:OR. Perhaps link to the originals if they are available online. In any case they need referencing.~~
The references for these are in the captions of the associated graphics. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
~~There is nothing about the number of employees, budget, etc. At the moment the article focusses in rather too much detail on the warnings issued, rather than the organization itself.~~ Done

Better, but could do with even more. At the moment I can get all of this content by just looking at {http://www.spc.noaa.gov/} and following the links.
Where did you find information on the budget? I've been searching half the internet and can't find it...all I can find is NOAA or National Weather Service's budgets. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a specific budget for the storm prediction center, either.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
~~No information from independent sources so it is not possible to ascertain this.~~
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

OK, there are quite a few things to address above. At the moment the article does not meet the Good Article criteria. Please remember that you are writing for an encyclopaedia with a general audience. On hold for seven days. Please leave comments here. I have watch-listed this page. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think this is fixed up enough to be a good article. Further areas you could explore are developing the history a little more. There is some interesting stuff here and here. The Fire Watch] side of things could also be developed more. Thanks for your work in responding to my concerns. I am happy to list this as a good article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]