Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Surface weather analysis/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Surface weather analysis

[edit]

It has been mentioned during FAC that this article should have peer review, which I have no problems with. I look forward to the critiques. Thegreatdr 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jayron32's Review

Issues that need addressing:

  1. The lead: Quite inadequate to summarize the article.
    1. First of all, a SWA is a type of weather map. It is the one most people are familiar with from the nightly newscast, but there are MANY other types of maps used to show weather, and an SWA is only one of them. Isotherm maps showing temperature distribution, radar maps showing prescipitation, satellite cloud imagery, etc. may all be used individually or in conjunction with SWAs to produce hybrid maps.
    2. The lead is not really a balanced summary. The history section is summarized in only a single sentance, while the symbols receive about 90% of the summary. Plus, its only a single paragraph. I would recommend the following structure for the lead:
      1. First paragraph should be a general introduction to an SWA and how and why they are used
      2. Second paragraph should summarize the history of their development
      3. Third paragraph should summarize common symbols and features.
      4. Fourth paragraph should summarize uses of SWAs.
  2. History section:
    1. The see also line at the top is a TOTAL non-sequitur. If this is to be included at all, it should be part of a see-also section. Where a see-also line is imbedded under a heading, it should lead to an article that expands the section directly, usually created as a fork for size reduction. This section really needs no forking, and needs no imbedded see-also.
    2. This section needs some expansion in areas. We have some gaps in the development of SWAs. Who first thought to plot isobars on a map? How did such maps become such powerful forcasting tools? When and how did familiar symbols become standardized?
      1. This is becoming the most difficult section to update to your satisfaction. I have added more on the history of the evolution of the surface analysis within the United States, but it doesn't cover your three questions. I'll see if I can find something, somewhere. Thegreatdr 15:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      2. I must say this isn't good advice. Articles should be balanced in how much space they allocate to each subtopic, with the amount of space proportional to the subtopic's importance. The article already allocates too great a portion of space to history and more wouldn't be appropriate. If you want more details on the history of this type of analysis, WP:SUMMARY calls for creating a subarticle and expanding that. - Taxman Talk 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        1. That's definitely a possibility Taxman. I'll consider the creation of a subarticle for the History of surface weather analysis, which would make the article more proportional. Thegreatdr 02:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Plotted symbols:
    1. Quite inadequate. We have no full discussion of the full weather-station symbol code. the NOAA surface analyses use a standardized weather station symbol for indicating cloud cover, windspeed and direction, pressure; not just weather conditions, which is what this section implies. We should have a graphic of the full symbol, and a discussion of each element of the symbol and how to interpret it.
    2. We need some expansion on WHY the various isolines are important in helping weather forcasters. We can plot isobars or isotherms, but so what? Why would we want to? Again, a picture of an isotherm, isobar, or an isotach map may be appropriate. Also, techinical terms like these probably need wikilinking to the appropriate articles.
  4. Synoptic scale features:
    1. No discussion of what this term means. It is jargony, and the section needs an introduction of its own.
    2. Also, this section does not need a see-also line, since these terms can be wikilinked in the article itself, rather than as an imbedded see-also line. See discussion above as well regarding the use of these.
    3. Pressure Centers subsection is choppy and hard to follow. It should probably read something like:
      1. Paragraph 1) A pressure center is... They are important because... They are represented on a map with...
      2. Paragraph 2) A low pressure center is... Winds typically circulate... Weather typically associated with one is...
      3. Paragraph 3) A high pressure center is... Winds typically circulate... Weather typically associated with one is...
    4. Fronts section has same issue. Try:
      1. Paragraph 1) A front is... They are important because... They are represented on a map with....
      2. Paragraph 2) A warm front is... Weather associated with a warm front is...
      3. Paragraph 3) A cold front is.... etc.
      4. etc.
  5. Mesoscale features:
    1. The see also line could probably include the mesoscale convective system link, but the rest should be regular wikilinks in the body of the text.
    2. The introduction is better than above.
    3. Dry line subsection has informal languages: "sloshes"???
    4. Dry line subsection also needs some expansion. Triple point is hard to interpret without context. A chemist might read this and thing something totally different than a meteorologist, and a lay person would have NO idea what either was thinking...
    5. Squall lines section. Explaining haboob might be good besides just wikilinking it.
    6. Same subsection: There is already a key above explaining the symbol. A briefer mention might be in order, but the nonstandard CAPS have got to go... Removed CAPS per suggestion from Mesoscale Convective System, but OUTFLOW BNDRY and SQUALL LINE are in caps because that is exactly how they are labelled on analyses, in caps. Thegreatdr 14:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maps in aviation section:
    1. Consider both expanding this section slightly AND maybe forking to its own article if aviation SWAs are significantly different than all others, such as maybe an article titled Aviation weather maps or something. IF you do this (and it isn't strictly needed, you could just expand this section), THAT would be an appropriate use of a seealso template.
    2. Better yet, expand this to a full section on "common uses of SWAs" and include aviation as a subsection.

Where I have given you an outline of how to organize a section, you definately want to be more varied in your prose than I have. These are merely outlines to follow to set up the sections in a logical organization scheme, not a strict template to follow for wording and such. There ya go. That should give you a start on ways to improve the article. Good luck. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs a longer lead per WP:LEAD. Be very careful to spell out how "Surface weather analysis" is any different from meteorology in general. Is that really the most recognizable term for the concept? I'm sure this has been hashed out before, but why not just name it weather map? - Taxman Talk 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to read my review above. A surface weather analysis isn't really a feild of discipline like "meteorology", it is a tool used by meteorologists to predict the weather. It is not a synonym of weather map, it is a type of weather map built on data from individual weather stations. Since these weather stations are ground based, the map is called a "surface weather analysis". There are lots of weather maps built on data from sources other than ground stations, for example: radar, or satellite, or balloon data. Weather maps that show this kind of data cannot properly be termed "Surface Weather Analysis", since, well, they don't use surface weather data.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • With that type of context improved, the lead is quite a bit better. Check what I added based on what you said here. The bits of context that differentiate this should be made clear. The only other major thing the article could use is expansion from reliable sources. - Taxman Talk 20:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits are coming along. The article weather map has risen from the ashes, per Jayron's comments, which now houses the aviation weather map section, since those maps don't deal with surface conditions most of the time anyhow. That article also talks about forms of analysis done on weather maps, which has been added to the fronts section. The lead has been reorganized, per the commments above. All the comments above have been responded to and resolved (except for the history questions), from what I can tell. Let me know if anything else comes up, whether within this peer review, or FAC. Thegreatdr 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, this is improving greatly. It seems we have taken care of the big issues (the history section appears more comprehensive now. I remove any objections to that one as well). Now lets work on the little stuff. First of all, I am NOT a great copyeditor. My strength is always the big picture, such as organization and the like. You may want to post this at The League of Copyeditors for a review from them. I am not saying the prose isn't good, I only note that copyediting is NOT my strong suit, and someone else should look at it, if only to say that it is good writing. Some other stuff that I caught on this read through:
    • The U.S. Army Signal Corps, which evolved into the modern National Weather Service That makes it sound like the NWS is a division of the army (which it isn't) or that the Signal Corp doesn't exist anymore, but "became" the NWS (which is didn't). You might want to clarify this relationship some.
    • The first attempts at time standardization may have taken hold in the Great Britain by 1855, but in the United States standard time did not come to pass until 1883, when time zones started to come into use across America for railroad use. Sentance is hard to parse. Not sure how to fix it, but it needs a rewrite. I keep getting lost while reading it.
    • The use of frontal zones on weather maps did not appear until the introduction of the Norwegian cyclone model in the late 1910s Why not wikilink Norwegian cyclone model, since there is a see-also at the bottom for this anyways (more on this later) That's an external link, not a see also. =) Thegreatdr 17:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of the term "front" to describe a weather line on a map or the interface between air masses that the line symbolizes came from the line's resemblance to the military fronts of World War I Again, hard to parse. Also, WWI and military fronts should be wikilinked.
    • The earliest surface analyses from the United States featured only a map of the continental U.S. with the day's air temperature, barometric pressure, wind velocity and direction, and a general indication of the weather for various cities around the country plotted directly on the map. Again, hard to parse. Probably a run on sentance that could use a reorganization or splitting into smaller sentances.
    • Symbols for weather are not straightforward, and were devised to take up the least room possible on weather maps. Replace symbols with "These models" or "These symbols" or something to better indicate relationship of this statement to rest of paragraph.
    • Consider looking to this page: [1] for additional help in decifering the station model symbols. It might help clean up that section a bit more. The section is MUCH better now than it was before, but it could probably still use some expansion. It is very "dense" in information, and that can make it hard to follow a bit. Plus, I like the graphics on the HPC page better than the one you used. Its easier to read, and as part of the NWS, graphics from the HPC should be public domain... Not a biggie, but might be worth checking out. Even if you don't use it, dropping it into the External Links section is probably appropriate. While the station model depiction is simpler than the one currently in the article, I think it would be a mistake to substitute the simpler station model for the more complete one. However, the wind barb from that page was needed, so included it both within this article and weather map. Thegreatdr 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the Low Pressure section, the relationship between low pressure systems and cyclones is unclear. The term cyclone is just dropped in, without explanation. Is it a synonym or a low pressure system? Is it a type of low pressure system?
    • In High Pressure, I don't remember, but don't some sources call high pressure systems "anticyclones?". I could be wrong, but I believe I have seen that term in print before... Might make for a nice balance with the low pressure section to mention the term.
    • In the Fronts introduction, you wikilink "mountain" but not "pressure gradient force"? Not even sure if pressure gradient force has an appropriate article to wikilink to, but you shouldn't wikilink common words like "mountain". Everyone knows what a "mountain" is.
    • The fronts subsections are underwikilinked. Some terms that should probably be linked to existing articles include: "cold front" (its first appearence isn't linked), "stratiform", "squall line" (its first appearence in the article should also be wikilinked), "trough" (in relation to meteorology), and "shear lines" should be wikilinked.
    • The cold and warm fronts curve up naturally into the point of occlusion. Up is imprecise here? Northward? Away from the earth's surface?
    • Inconsistent use of airmass/air mass. Not sure which is correct, but using BOTH isn't
    • "At night, the boundary reverts back to the west as daytime" awkward phrasing. The whole dry line section could use some work.
    • I understand why the CAPS are used for terms like SQLN and the like, but maybe these terms should be in quotes as well? Not sure on that usage, and a better grammarian than I should probably look at it and give their opinion.
    • The term "Sea/lake/river breeze" is awkward. Maybe rewrite as "Sea breeze (also lake breeze or river breeze as appropriate)" would be clearer. Also, the description of a sea/land breeze cycle closely resembles a dryline cycle... Is there any relationship between the two? Just curious.
    • The see also section has terms that are wikilinked in the text. I am pretty sure that the See Also section at the bottom should be reserved for related articles that are NOT wikilinked in the text. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions which specifically explains how See Also sections are to be used.
    • Years, months, or days that are NOT part of full dates should not be wikilinked, unless the year is wikilinked to an "in XXXX" article to provide context (such as [[2001 in music]]) or something like that. Only wikilink full dates in the form [[9 May]] [[2007]] which allows for the date formating aspect of the wikisoftware to work correctly. See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT for more info.
  • There ya go again. Like I said, the article is MUCH improved, and the above nit-picks are quite detailed, but again, if this article is to have the "compelling or brilliant prose" expected of an FA, it needs work. Don't forget to post at WP:LOCE for another look as well.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • One more thing. Perhaps an actual NWS map that shows the station model codes clearly would be appropriate. this one: [2] from the HPC does just that pretty well. It is zoomed in well enough to show the stations and isolines clearly. Others can be found at: [3] which again might make a good external link to the article.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Surface_weather_analysis/archive1&oldid=863983717"