Talk:Outflow (meteorology)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
This appears to be a comprehensive, well-referenced, well-illustrated article, at about GA-level, but I have a few comments to make first.


 * The Lead -
 * A good introduction and summary; and has a nice picture.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) - The picture has a "wedge" in the green area, I assume that is what we are meant to be looking at in respect of Outflow (or is that a computer-generated symbol)? There is a blue "front" symbol (spiky dog collar), perhaps it aught to made clear in the caption that it is computer-added (and not really there); the colours also aught to be mentioned, presumably the different colours represent a "density function", if so what is the boundary - blue (light or dark), orange, or green (light or dark); and front or back edge?


 * Thunderstorms -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) - Presumably a thunderstorm in good health is one that will continue, in contrast to one that will fade? Thunderstorm does not discuss "health", but the three stages discussed are developing, mature & dissipating.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) - In the middle of the second paragraph we have a sentence: "Clouds, hydrometeors and new thunderstorms can ...." with Precipitation (meteorology) piped to hydrometeors. Does the use of the term "hydrometeors" instead of "Precipitation" add to our understanding (in my case it does not I had to look it it)?
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) - What does "This makes it possible to locate the outflow boundary when using precipitation mode." mean, i.e. its raining, so look for rain; or some measuring device is set to a particular mode?
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC) - I assume by "bow", it means the forward direction is indicated by the convex side?

Pyrotec (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Made edits per your initial comments. Strike out whatever you feel has been fixed to your satisfaction.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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 GA-status. Congratulations on producing an understandable explanation. Pyrotec (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)