Talk:Bounded weak echo region

The article's renaming
This sounds like an article about a phenomenon found in mesocyclone thunderstorm complexes called a bounded weak echo region (BWER). It's not only a tropical cyclone-related feature. We could keep it separate and rename the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have renamed the article in my boldness. That will allow us to expand the article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The mention about the tropical cyclone vault is totally out of the definition of a BWER and has nothing to do with this article. It should be moved to the article Eye (cyclone). Pierre cb (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since tropical cyclones are special cases of MCSs over less limited areas of warmth and moisture (which cause them to persist longer), the mid-level eye section could just as easily be mentioned in this article as within the eye article. I'm not against adding it to the eye article as well, but it needs to be fully referenced first.  The mid-level eye feature in tropical cyclones can be transient like a BWER.  I honestly don't see why it would need to be removed from this article, since their characteristics are remarkably similar.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The term BWER was specifically coined for severe thunderstorms, and in particular in supercells, to explain the effect on the strong updraft into the storm (look at the AMS and NWS definition in the reference). To my knowledge, BWER is never used in the tropical cyclone structure because the mid-level eye of the tropical cyclone, the motion is downward, bringing dry air from above, a totally different process on a much large scale than the BWER. The only mention of a BWER in a tropical cyclone would be in individual cells within the cyclone, usually on the outer rim, that could give a tornadic event. Pierre cb (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd be right if it was the eye of a mature tropical cyclone. But these mid-level eye features tend to be transient, with clouds/precipitation both above and below them, very much like a BWER.  Otherwise, you could see mid-level eyes on conventional visible and IR satellite imagery.  If you can find a reference stating what you have said about mid-level eyes, place it here, we'll read your line concerning downward motion if within the reference, and we'll move the segment to eye.  I have found extremely few mentions of mid-level eyes on the internet from primary sources.  Good luck in your search. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to the horse's mouth to get information. I've been writing to the NHC to ask about this point and I'm waiting the answer. As I read your personal page, I see that you are working for HPC. Maybe you can get this info faster? In fact, I'm wondering how can this term of mid-level eye be often mentionned in NHC discussions but there is no mention of it in their glossary?Pierre cb (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's an excellent point. I have contacts down there.  Let me ask a couple of them if there is already a paper with its definition to see if there's a relevant reference and/or if they can add it to their FAQ.  The fact that their glossary does not mention the feature is why I renamed the article BWER from Mid-level eye in the first place, lest it be deleted from wikipedia.  If it turns out the evolution is as you suggest, the move will be done swiftly, per your suggestion.  =)  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I just got an e-mail reply from NHC. It said: ''I can see many possibilities for the mid-level eyes. Some of them may well be supercell-type BWERs, although most of the time those features are too small to be seen in microwave imagery. Other times they may be formative eyewalls. I don't have any papers or references about them.''

I've asked someone else within the TC community about whether or not any papers have been written regarding them. If no one has, it's best we leave it within this article. A version of it could always be copied over the eye as well, if its dynamics remain dubious. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You should integrate this info in the text as possibilities for the mid-level eye wall. On my side, I've never had any reply by the e-mail address from the HNC site. I wonder where my e-mail went? I hope you will have further info. Pierre cb (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Received another reply. Eye features seen on microwave imagery appear to have escaped academia (at least formally).  Therefore, have moved that section into the eye (cyclone) article.  It can always be moved back if research is done showing they are similar to BWERs.  Informally, the reply mentioned that it looks like a low-level feature, and may have mid-level subsidence similar to an eye in a tropical cyclone, but no papers appear to have been published on the topic, according to the source.  The known references from NHC are unclear on the term as well.  Nor is it in the glossary of meteorology.  Therefore, shrunk the section and moved it into eye, as you and others before you have requested.  I was really relying on the editor who originally inserted BWER-like wording for mid-level eye (seen between 500-850 hPa comment) to step forward with the reference, but that never happenned due to the above.  Was waiting for this to be resolved before GACing the article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've received a reply from Chris Landsea at NHC : " The mid-level center or eye occasionally mentioned in the NHC Discussions refers to the appearance of a center as defined by deeper convective structures relative to a surface center of circulation. Most often a significant difference in position between the two occurs when there exists quite a bit of vertical wind shear.  While this sometimes can be diagnosed from the geostationary satellite imagery, more often it can be seen from the polar orbiting satellite imagery in the microwave spectrum." This confirms to me that it is not a BWER features but really formed as the same way as the tropical cyclone eye. For more on the use of the microwave imagery, M. Landsea pointed out to the "Microwave Imagery" learning module available from the Jacksonville Weather Forecast Office STORM project (under Tropical Cyclones):  and . I will put theses references in the Eye (cyclone) article. Pierre cb (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Tornadocane/Landcane/Landphoon
We recently had a similar article to tornadocane called landphoon removed from wikipedia because the term was not in the glossary of meteorology. What's interesting is that landphoon had about seven unique sources, while tornadocane has exactly one source using the term. I'm going to remove the link, and propose the article's removal, for consistency's sake. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 8, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


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

Great job on the article so far, just needs a few improvements.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference problem has been eliminated. How do you propose expanding the content on this article?  It is a fairly narrow topic.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are now enough citaions, but the topic is pretty narrow, I don't know myself. Maybe we will think of something at some point. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The topic itself is very narrow, as you well pointed out, so there isn't that much to expand. Can we get a second opinion? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 22:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There could be expansion in more highly technical aspects, but it's debatable whether that's appropriate for an encyclopedia or Wikipedia. Otherwise, I don't see any room for anything more than minor expansion.  Evolauxia (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the issue becomes where we need to minorly expand. Any opinions on this? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess no noe else can come up with anything, including me. Unless someone comes up with something to add, I will pass it tommorow. I will go ahead and see if I can find anything else about BWERs, I think WFO PAH has a study whcih is online, but unfortunately, CRH websites are down at the time of this post. When they come back up I will put a link here. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It turns out that they have just a bunch of derecho studies, which I have read, and nothing about BWERs, even their study of the May 2003 Supercells mainly talks about the shear and velocity, rather than a BWER. I am going to pass now, I accidently did a section edit. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

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 March 27, 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

Wonderful article for a technical subject. 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) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture #3
I saw the picture I took off earlier today was replaced and thought I'd open it up to a discussion for some consensus to prevent an edit war, From my knowledge I thought BWER are localized events and the pictures depicts a larger Mesoscale Convective System (state borders of NY and PA and the outline of Lake Erie can be seen)I quickly did some research to double check my knowledge and BWER may out at a mile or two wide. , On a side note: I did move the picture to the squall line article, where it adds much value to the article, being an excellent radar image of two squall lines.
 * I propose removing the current image, and replacing it with a proper image of a BWER.--Bhockey10 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Predictably, I oppose. Since there is already a proper image of a BWER in the lead section of this articel, adding a replacement image doesn't make any sense.  Also, that image is a bad version of a squall line since those lines are inflow bands into the mesoscale convective system.  Besides, when people look at the image, they're going to see the system with an eye-like feature and could confuse that with the squall line.  There are other images within the source page of that image that would be better examples of a squall line.  The article, caption, and source clearly state that the system shows a BWER-like structure, that is all.  Since both systems are mesoscale, I personally don't see the issue for leaving it within the article.  If you don't think the image/related lines of text belong in this article, which article do you think it would belong?  It was originally proposed to go into the eye article, which was considered a bad idea.  It originally had its own article, landphoon, which was then removed from wikipedia, though the more obscure article tornadocane, coined by one person and used by one person (and not even within a professional journal, unlike landphoon), was inexplicably left within wikipedia.  We could place it in the mesoscale convective system article, but I'm worried it would shorten this article to such a size that GA status would no longer be possible.  If the article hadn't passed GA before your edit, there would be more room for negotiation.  What do others think?  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * . The image would be good in the mesoscale convective system people wouldn't confuse the image with squall lines, which often trial low pressure systems, etc. Inflow bands are essentially the same things and squall lines. it wouldn't be good in Tornadocane article because they are localized events too, the picture is a large MCC.Replacing the image with a more suitable one shouldn't hurt the GA status.--Bhockey10 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bounded weak echo region. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818045114/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=bounded-weak-echo-region1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=bounded-weak-echo-region1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)