Talk:History of numerical weather prediction/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now done several quick read through's of the article and from these I conclude that the article appears to be at or about GA-level. From reading the first 25%, or so, of the article I had jumped to the erroneous conclusion that the article was US-biased, but it soon became clear that the article was much wider in scope than the USA.

I'm now going to work my way through the article in more detail, but leave any consideration of the WP:Lead until last. This may take a day or so, but I aim to complete this by Tuesday at the latest. Pyrotec (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Roots -
 * This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.


 * Early years -
 * A small minor point: this section uses the term "barotropic equation" whereas the previous section uses "barotropic vorticity equation", are they the same?
 * Barotropic equations assume a barorropic atmosphere. The first is a general statement and the second is more specific.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

...to be continued. Pyrotec (talk)


 * Much of this section is clear and readable, but I'm trying to understand one key point about this section and how it differs from the following section. Summarising what the article appears to be saying: JNWPU was a three-layer Northern Hemisphere model, it (JNWPU) then switched to a two-layer model with certain assumptions (stated in the article) and then a one-layer model. Its not clear whether the two and one-layer models were Northern Hemisphere only models: I could "read" the article as implying that, but the Australia's Bureau of Meteorology single-layer model may or may not put a "spanner in the works". Enhancements were added at various times, solar radiation, moisture, rain, sea ice, etc; but its sill not clear whether these are still Northern Hemisphere only models. Also, how did Australia forecast their weather with Northern Hemisphere only model (perhaps they did not)?
 * As far as I can tell, there was no such thing as a global forecast model until around 1980. Any models which preceded this date (for Europe, Asia, and North America) were predominantly Northern Hemisphere.  I have so far been unable to find any sources/references which discuss Australia's achievements in this field.  If they had model prior to 1980, they were likely only focusing on the Southern Hemisphere.  It took quite a while to find anything from Canada and the UK, global model history-wise.  Japan info was surprisingly easy to find.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I've made too much of the term "Northern Hemisphere model" and tried to apply it where it was not intended. I'll think a bit more about my final response. Pyrotec (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Global forecast models -
 * This section can be summarised as: "everyone has and is/has been using them since the 1980", but what are they? The main text in the article fails to say (well not quite: see my comments below regarding Limited-area models). Perhaps they are a model that includes both the Northern and Southern hemispheres - but I'm merely guessing from the text that appears in the previous section, i.e. "Northern Hemisphere model"
 * I've addressed your concern by stating that they are initialized and run over the entire globe's troposphere. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Global climate models -
 * This section, which is a single paragraph, is generally clear and readable. One particular sentence, i.e. "In 1986, efforts began to initialize and model soil and vegetation types, which led to more realistic forecasts", raises a few unanswered questions mostly: what effects do soil and vegetation have on the model? Since there is no answer, I presume they have an influence on the seven variables that defined the state of the atmosphere at a given point: pressure, temperature, density, humidity, and the three components of the velocity vector. My guess is that possibly pressure is the only variable not directly affected, but this article is nominated as a GA so I should not have to guess! A simple statement (perhaps the effect is not simple) that soil and vegation influences moisture and humidity, etc, in the (grid of) atmosphere above it.
 * This concern has been addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ An example of their influence has been provided, so I'm happy. Pyrotec (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Limited-area models -
 * I think I understood this section, but then I thought about grid, fine and course and decided that this was the first mention of them in the article. Not quite: the only mention is in the figure at the beginning of the article: Schematic of a Global Atmospheric model, which has a long note: "Models use systems of differential equations based on the laws of physics, fluid motion, and chemistry, and use a coordinate system which divides the planet into a 3D grid. Winds, heat transfer, radiation, relative humidity, and surface hydrology are calculated within each grid and evaluate interactions with neighboring points". I think the figure is in the wrong place, it probably aught to be in the Global forecasts section; and that the Note includes text that aught to be in the Global forecasts/climate models and Limited-area models sections, or perhaps aught to be summarised in the figure and expanded upon in the two/three sections.
 * The image is moved. I've fulfilled your suggestion, and tried not to add too much info from the numerical weather prediction article.  That really is the role of the subarticle.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Much improved. Pyrotec (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

...to be continued; and sorry my forecast was for completion Tuesday gone, not Tuesday coming. Pyrotec (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Air quality models, Tropical cyclone models , Ocean models , Model output statistics & Ensembles -
 * These sections appear to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article this article GA-status. I consider that much of the information provided in the body of the article is tending towards WP:FAC level. The WP:Lead is perhaps rather weaker when considered from the viewpoint of a possible FAC, but its adequate for a GA. Congratulations on producing a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 21:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)