Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cirrus cloud/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 03:42, 14 July 2011.

Cirrus cloud

 * Nominator(s): Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe that cirrus cloud meets the FA criteria. It is an important topic, and appears to be read every so often in schools (judging by the number of times I have to rollback the article). I've gotten this article from a little, tolerably-sourced start to DYK and then to GA. I would now like to get it all the way to FA status, and I have had a peer review to help it along. Thanks for everybody's help along the way, and I guess it is now my time for my baptism by fire. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * McGraw-Hill Editorial Team or Staff?
 * Staff. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Many of your footnote-to-bibliography links appear to be broken
 * I don't know how to get them to work. Could somebody please point me to an example of them working? Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Californium is the next article on the FAC list to use them, and they work there. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed. (I was missing the  parameters.)
 * FN 15: why not include the other authors here? Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Added "et al". Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Date for Hamilton?
 * As this actually is an eBook, it doesn't appear to have a date of publication. I check Google books and the publisher's website, and neither gives a date of publication. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Be consistent in whether you include a comma before "et al." or not
 * Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Missing bibliographic info for Ahrens 2007
 * Sorry, typo (meant Ahrens 2006). Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * FN 4: spell out or link NOAA
 * Spelled out and linked. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
 * I think these are all fixed now. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * FN 14: should include information on original source
 * Oops, this was an old link to the McGraw-Hill book. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers
 * All (2) removed, as it is unimportant Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * FN 27: why the difference in date format here?
 * Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * FN 49: check formatting on page range
 * Hyphen changed to en-dash, abgbreviation fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Need page numbers for multi-page PDFs
 * Added. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * FN 53: should include the name of the interviewee
 * I added the interviewer's name, but the interviewee's name is not given. Removed because this broke the  template by not having interviewee's name. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * No need to include page numbers for books in Bibliography, since page numbers are in footnotes
 * Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Retrieval dates aren't needed for convenience links to print-based sources (like Google Books)
 * Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Some of the sources marked as eBooks in fact appear to be normal books.
 * Sorry, I thought that the "eBook" was referring to the fact that the link was to Google Books. EDIT: One actually is an eBook, however. Reaper Eternal (talk)

In general sources appear reliable, but formatting needs to be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I try to only cite reliable sources to prevent errors from creeping in. However, my formatting is not very good  ! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll hopefully get around to looking at this. This edit serves only as a reminder to myself to do so. Carry on. :) -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

TCO comments.
 * Please do not let Atmoz disturb you. He is a global warming skeptic.  Try to keep to mainstream science and don't let this McIntyre-lover upset you.
 * I'm a global warming skeptic myself, so he won't bother me. :) I just try not to let my POV show in the articles I write, but just state what the sources say without asserting global warming's existence or nonexistence. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Break the lead into paragraphs (not arbitrarily, but with structure).
 * Fixed while resolving another issue. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Mention the altitude in lead.
 * Done. Added to the short, choppy sentence on color, which now reads nicer too. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Consider dropping the ubiquitous Infobox. Not helpful for this kind of article.  Keep the pictures...scrumptious.
 * Dropped. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Add some pics in "Description".
 * Added a couple in various locations. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Further down, there are a bunch of pics at 150 (way too small). Think about ways to present these better (perhaps centering).
 * I increased the size to 250px. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Try to make the article have a little more "putting things into a larger context" or structure. I just felt like I was not getting a good sense of where this cloud fits into the family of clouds in general.
 * I added a description in the lead of the various cloud forms and how they compare to the cirrus clouds. Incidentally, this also fixed the issue with the lead being one paragraph. I cannot split it any more without just breaking it at some random location. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Also, clarify a little more if some of the aspects listed are peculiar to this kind of cloud (like the "glory" or hurricane association) or happend with all clouds.
 * Most of the optical phenomena are peculiar to ice-crystal clouds (various cirriform clouds. It appears that only cirrus clouds are associated with hurricanes, or at least no source that I could find describes any other. The problem with this is I am essentially trying to prove a negative, and all sources I can find state the positive. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * (NEW)Try to do some illustration of a concept, that is a non-photograph of a cloud. Is there some analytical diagram, chart, map, comparison, or the like, that would help educate us?  Maybe some Excel analysis shown in a chart (reffed properly of course), or a table or something?  A measurement instrument?  An effect?  Predecessors and successors (arranged in a "this leads to this" set of images)?  I really don't know what...just pushing you to think about it and see what you can come up with.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For instance, a quick google found this image which kinda answers my "where does it fit in the family question.  Here is a google search on cirrus+cloud+chart : scanning down, I see a few diagrams and charts.TCO (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a diagram and added it next to the description in the lead. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Other than that, looked pretty polished, although I skimmed, no parsed. Just work a little more on context and structure, so my mind does not wander. TCO (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, and I think I have fixed all of your issues. Does the chart showing cloud height and the paragraph describing the relationships added to the lead help? will be back later to work on the rest! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC) 15:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. That lede image is massive. Please shrink it, as it looks rather bad in small-resolution screens. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shrunk. My screen resolution for my home PC is 1920x1080, so I hadn't really noticed it being very big. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Better. Also, the link to Graeme et al (1990) is dead. I recommend linking to the J. Atmos. Sci page directly at . (It shouldn't be behind a paywall, given that it was published in 1990.) Also consider adding Bibcodes to the references, such as . Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Link fixed (thanks for the new, better link), and bibcodes added to all but Miyazaki et al's and Parungo's papers, which don't appear to be in that database. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And it's "Relevance," not "Relevence," by the way... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Spelling corrected. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Units check
 * It says 200 mb and has other instances intended to mean millibar. The symbol for millibar is 'mbar'.
 * Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * It says .001 millimeters to .1 millimeters. Decimals should have a leading zero.
 * I think I fixed all these now.... Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * It has inconsistent 'er' and 're' spelling. Make it consistent with the article's spelling status of US or nonUS spelling.
 * All changed to "er". Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Lightmouse (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I got all these issues. Anything else need fixing? :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the unit edits. It looks good from the units point of view now. Lightmouse (talk) 08:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The lead must not contain references, as it only summarizes the article (per WP:MOS). TGilmour (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * TGilmour, that information is incorrect-- please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD and WP:WIAFA. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 13:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll work on getting the number of citations in the lead down to a better number, but a couple, like the ones sourcing the name, cannot be removed easily. Also, the lead can contain citations for material likely to be challenged, such as claims about "tuft of hair" and "Latin for curl". (See WP:LEADCITE.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment (GermanJoe) Oppose for now, though the article will certainly be FA with a bit of changes. It has comprehensive information, good prose and structure in most parts. There are 1-2 very basic problems with lead (see WP:LEAD) and images and a few minor things :
 * Lead - "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and [possibly] Neptune". ==> Main text doesn't state Neptune as a matter of fact, just as a possible occurence. Both statements need to be consistent.
 * Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Lead - "They range in color from white to a faint gray, and form at altitudes of 6,100 m (20,000 ft) and above." ==> Those facts aren't in main text (neither the color nor the altitude value) and seem to contradict several other altitude information in text: Lead last paragraph states, that high-etage clouds (all types?) can occur as low as 3,000 m above sea level. "Description" in main text states "The cloud's height above sea level can be anywhere from 4 km ...". If those differing values are due to different background information or measurements, this should be clarified. If not, the values should be made consistent.
 * Made consistent by offering explaining that they form at different altitudes at different latitudes. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Lead - Last two paragraphs of lead do not follow WP:LEAD guidelines, lead should be a summary introduction and all facts from lead should be present (with more detail) in main text. If this information is needed, it should be trimmed in lead and the main part moved somewhere to main text, maybe together with the diagram, which is a bit distracting in the lead.
 * Moved to its own section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Lead - The systematic listing of all cloud forms also strays away from article focus, are all those details really needed to understand cirrus clouds? A lot of this information may be better put into an article about clouds in general.
 * I added this because TCO wanted information about cirrus clouds as related to other clouds. It has been moved to its own section under the lead, but I am thinking it maybe should be moved to between the cirrocumulus section and the "ex-earth cirrus" section. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Lead - Generally all lead statements need to be checked: Are they summary style? Is lead information present and consistent in the main text?
 * I've rewritten the lead to have better flow, have more consistency, and be a better summary of the body. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Values - article switches between 4 km and 4,000 m several times. One consistent method should be used (no idea, if MOS recommends one of them).
 * Changed all to meters. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Images - Probably not always possible, but placement of images should be improved, avoid sandwiching of text between 2 images (in sections "Optical phenomena" and "formation in cyclones", see WP:MOSIMAGES).
 * I'll do my best, but there are always going to be issues depending on what size screen is used. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Images - are 2 halo images needed? Moon halos aren't mentioned in text. Consider removing moon halo image.
 * Removed that image and moved the solar halo image into its place. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Formation in cyclones - "the top reaches reaches the tropopause" ==> second "reaches"?
 * Oops. Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Description - the structure of first paragraph is a bit confusing. The article states all averages for certain cloud features in one list and then goes on to list the ranges of the same features again in a separate list. A structure combining average with range variations for each single feature would probably be easier to follow. GermanJoe (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewrote this paragraph to keep the ranges with their corresponding averages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The article has undergone several improvements in regards to structure, i stroke the main concerns and will try to have another read-through before supporting.
 * Consider splitting up the first lead paragraph, it's overly long and not really "inviting" to the article with that much information at once. Not sure, where to draw the line to split, maybe start a new para with "Jet stream-powered cirrus ...". GermanJoe (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for splitting it! So is there anything else you see? I'll try to give it another copyediting pass today to improve the prose. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose for now neutral I'd still like to look this over more, but I have no reason to oppose at this time. In my view this article does not satisfy criteria 1a and to a lesser extent 1b. I'll be editing the article to fix what I can and posting here for clarification on what I can't. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments by Atmoz:
 * Why are you using Kelvin and Rankine for temperature units (in the lead and #Effects on climate? WP:UNITS suggests that we use units that would be easiest to understand, in this case Celsius and Fahrenheit. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to Celsius and Fahrenheit. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * In #Formation, the sentence starting with "Streaks may appear straight..." seems to describe all cirrus, not just contrails (there's no reference). Is that what you meant? (It should be.) If so, it should not follow immediately after the sentence on contrails. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed that sentence entirely as it was almost worthless. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * Actually, the whole #Formation section seems confused between contrails and "natural" cirrus. You need to split the formation of contrails into a completely different paragraph. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleaned this up. Reaper Eternal (talk)
 * The first paragraph of #Formation is especially weak. You have 3 sentences, 2 of which say the same thing. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed this issue. Reaper Eternal (talk)

I'll probably be adding more comments later. -Atmoz (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I look forward to seeing them! Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note : I just went through and attempted to clean up the prose and remove redundancies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to point out where I removed a bit. In the paper, there were two "experiments". In the first, the cloud base was kept constant at 8km and the cloud thickness changed. In all cases, the temperature below cloud base increased. In the second experiment, they redid the first but lowed the cloud base to 5km. What we see there is that the temperature below cloud base increased for the low cloud depths, but decreased in the 3km case. Whether there is warming or cooling below a cloud layer depends on its optical depth (not physical depth) and the albedo of the surface below. So by using physical depth and not optical depth, Liou is confusing the reader (I think he used physical depth because its published in MWR). The important point is that the switch from warming to cooling occurs when the optical depth changes values (around 1), and in this hypothetical "experiment" that happened to occur at 3km. In general though, clouds with an optical depth greater than 1 would not be classified as cirrus. Also, the blackbody thing (even though it's in Liou) is not important. -Atmoz (talk) 21:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that explains things. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * #Optical phenomena: Why are you referring to specific optical phenoms by date rather than in general? -Atmoz (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now rewritten the paragraphs to refer to optical phenomena in general. The picture caption now mentions the date and location of the picture. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Will the person who is adding interspersed unsigned comments please stop it? Not only do we not know who wrote all of those one-liners-- they are unnecessarily increasing the length of the FAC. Please sign or add  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, they were all my comments. This is my first FA nomination, so I'm not too certain about how I'm supposed to format them. They should all be signed now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Support (GermanJoe) Some more suggestions and minor prose tweaks (my previous comments were adressed):
 * Lead: "Cirrus clouds can form on other planets, including Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and possibly Neptune." ==> would it help to clarify, that some of those clouds are not water-based? Would also add to the length of the short 3rd lead paragraph.
 * Done. 3rd paragraph looks better now too; thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Description: "The final measurement source is simply visual observations from either airplanes or the ground." ==> Calling observations "measurement" sounds a bit odd, maybe "Visual observations from either airplanes or the ground provide additional information about cirrus clouds." instead.
 * Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cirrus clouds come in six distinct subforms ..." ==> How are those subforms sorted (most to least common)? Also explain the subforms later in the same order (mixed up at the moment).
 * Now sorted alphabetically. Apart from cirrus fibratus, I am uncertain if any research has been done on the relative prevalence of individual species. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forecasting: "The random, isolated cirrus cloud does not have any particular significance. [A cirrus castellanus ... instability at the cirrus level.] However, a large number of cirrus clouds may be a sign of an approaching frontal system or upper air disturbance." ==> "However" probably relates to the first sentence, not the second one. Try to restructure to clarify the connections between those 3 thoughts.
 * Rewritten. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Within the tropics, 36 hours ... of the cyclone." ==> This would fit better moved to the 2nd paragraph, which deals with hurricanes.
 * Moved to first sentence of second paragraph, as it definitely fits better there. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Effects: "When cirrus clouds are 100 m (330 ft) thick, they reflect only around 9% of the incoming sunlight, [and yet] they prevent almost 50% of the outgoing infrared radiation from escaping." ==> a simple "but" is more formal. Avoid overly "narrative" or essay-like phrases.
 * Agree; changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Cirrostratus: "Cirrostratus clouds sometimes look a lot like altostratus clouds." ==> I don't like such comparisons as first sentence, as they practically explain nothing to the layman, who isn't familiar with either term. Maybe start with "Cirrostratus clouds can appear as ..." and then use the comparison as additional detail. Also "a lot like" is too colloquial, suggest "similar to".
 * I moved the comparison after the description and removed the colloquial phrasing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Extraterrestrial: "Cirrus clouds also occur on Mars." ==> A bit short and not really engaging to start the section, maybe "Cirrus clouds have been observed on several planets in the Solar System.", just add a bit more meat to the intro sentence.
 * Agree, so changed lead sentence. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I am looking forward to support this fine article, when the last round of minor improvements is finished. GermanJoe (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * All points adressed, changed vote to support, 2 points not affecting the vote:
 * Images look fine, but image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CirrusField-color.jpg has a clean-up tag for out-dated copyright tag. The tag indicates, it's only a minor cleanup without affecting the basic copyright status, but it would probably be best to have an image expert look into it - just to be sure.
 * I've asked Fastily. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fastily has fixed the license. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Be consistant, if you link planets or not - Saturn and Uranus f.e. are not linked (as planet articles usually have additional atmospheric information, i'd prefer to link all of them). GermanJoe (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are all now linked in the lead, where they are first mentioned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Getting better. Was asked to relook at the article. From a quick scan, one major upgrade I would have for you is to tighten up the writing. You can be more definite (which will both read stronger and save words). Instead of c clouds can form many shapes, c clouds do form many shapes. Instead of "can take on a variety of shapes", -> "take on a variety of shapes", or "occur in many shapes". There was a place (not finding it know) where you said something like "it has been observed that blabla", when you could say "blabla". Similarly, "researchers of this phenomenon" -> "researchers". A front to back prose edit to clean up un-needed qualifiers and caveats would help this thing sing. Other than that, I'm not sure I will have time to really review it enough to support (nor did I before). I suggest getting another layperson, another general scientist, and another weather scientist to review it. I wish you the best and appreciate your hard work on the article! TCO (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments! I've gone through the article and attempted to tighten up the prose, and I think I've gotten most of the extraneous cruft worked out now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Small bug. Ref. "Nucleation" got lost in the editing frenzy :) and is now broken in ref 27. Not sure, if you planned to replace the source completely, or i would fix it myself. GermanJoe (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops! I removed it from a place where the cited text was not given in that citation and forgot that another bit of text depended on it! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Support – but I think the prose could do with another pair of eyes to improve flow and remove redundancy. I have made a few edits in the hope of reducing some of the latter. Please check my edits in case I have introduced factual errors. The few spot checks for close paraphrasing, and the like, that I have done have not revealed any worries, and the image usage seems sound. I love clouds. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And no, you did not introduce any factual inaccuracies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead is groovy and saucy. -- Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled as to why the lead discusses the shape of the cirrus cloud in so many different places: "characterized by thin, wispy strands, often bunched into tufts"; "cirrus clouds commonly resemble curly hair"; "they ... take on a variety of shapes"; "cirrus clouds can grow long enough to stretch across continents".
 * I initially discuss the appearance of cirrus clouds as a lead-in and to make mention of/establish context for alternative names for these clouds. I then go on to describe their location (altitude) and size (up to transcontinental). I did remove one unnecessary mention "take on a variety of shapes". Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does "anvil" mean in this context? How about "fire rainbow"?
 * I wikilinked "anvil" to "Anvil cloud", as I am refering to the formation of cirrus clouds from cumulonimbus clouds (thunderstorms). "Fire rainbow" wouldn't make sense because cirrus clouds do not form from fire rainbows&mdash;light scatter through the cloud forms fire rainbows. Oops, you meant to wikilink Fire rainbow farther down. That's done now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "a pattern of small cloud tufts which include droplets" Not sure that "include" is the best word here. How about "contain"?
 * "Contain" is better, thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead does not adequately summarize material from Use in forecasting.
 * Added mention of what the cirrus formation from thunderstorms and cyclones indicates. (This summarizes the forecasting section.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One question that should be answered in the lead: Do these clouds produce precipitation? Readers should not have to delve into the body or navigate to other articles to determine if this is the case.
 * Added mention of this. It fit in nicely after the discussion of what cirrus clouds indicate, since while they indicate the arrival of precipitation, they themselves make none. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, Cryptic C62! Any other issues that need fixing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm a happy clam! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions: no doubt these are is a really stupid, but my knowledge of meteorology is only basic. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * During the night, it determines cirrus cloud cover by detecting the Earth's infrared emissions.: why only at night?
 * A different method is used during the day, since the majority of radiation then is being reflected out (sun shining on the top of the cloud). At night, there is no reflection, so a different method had to be used. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Can cirrus clouds form anywhere on Earth? Are there significant differences between, say, North American and European clouds?
 * I haven't found any studies that cover Europe by itself; I've only found ones for the US and the whole earth. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on satellite data, cirrus clouds cover an average of 20% to 25% of the Earth's surface worldwide. Is that year-round? Oh, and "Earth's surface worldwide" is redundant. ;)
 * That's averaged by year. Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However, in the tropical regions, cirrus clouds cover around 70% of the region's surface area. Does that mean they form in lower concentrations elsewhere?
 * My guess is that is the case. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Effects on climate: how does this compare/contrast with other clouds?
 * Hmm, I'll need to look for information on this. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so I've found some information on this. According to this, "the net effect of clouds on the climate today is to cool the surface by about 5°C (9°F)." As this describes clouds in general, I'll have to think of a way to incorporate this information. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The information is now added after the discussion on the heating effects of cirrus clouds as a mention of how cirrus cloud heating is in contrast to the average. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Other comments. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are we describing something that forms in the air by the surface area it covers?
 * This is because the relative difference in the area of a circle at 30,000 feet of altitude compared with a circle with the same areal angle at ground level is 0.2858% larger. Additionally, the climatic effects are based upon the surface area covered. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What does Cirrus clouds also are the remnants of thunderstorms. mean?
 * Reworded slightly to make this clearer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand is not a phrase I would normally expect to see in an encyclopaedia. It's a bit conversational for my liking.
 * Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is the red link Benito Vines one that has a prospect of turning blue (ie is the link there because you came to the conclusion he's notbale, or because someone else put it there and you didn't feel like unlinking it)
 * I'm not certain yet if he's notable, as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of him (granted, he was alive in the 1800s, which makes sources hard to find). Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Times: AM and PM should be lower case, per MOS:TIME
 * Fixed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the evidence does not support this: in plain English, does that mean the theory is bollocks, or that the hypothesis just hasn't been proven (yet)?
 * It's because the hypothesis has not been proven&mdash;it's a possible scenario just like the negative-feedback hypothesis. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and please check my copy edits in case I inadvertently changed the meaning of something.
 * I've undone one which kind of gave the impression that cirrus clouds only occur on earth. Thanks for the others, though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Images All seem to be in order and all are freely licensed. The source for File:Cirrocumulus4 - NOAA.jpg is a dead link, so ideally a link would be added to a previous version of the page or the image linked to at its new location if it's moved, but that's not a big enough issue to slow down the FAC imo. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. A fascinating article and a good read. I'm happy that all my WIAFA-based comments have been addressed. I'd still suggest finding an archive URL for the image dead link, and I'll leave the comparison with other clouds fro consideration, but neither is essential, in my view, for promotion. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. One archive url for you - . - JuneGloom    Talk  13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the archive URL, but I've already replaced the image. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I replaced the image with another, better-quality image. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I've cleaned up all the issues. Thank you for your comments HJ, and anything else need fixing? Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, all my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. Excellent work—you've genuinely increased the layman's understanding of an important topic. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support&mdash;Overall a good work that appears to satisfy the FA criteria. There were a few statements that needed refinement, but I performed a copy-edit rather than listing them here. Hopefully those revisions are to your satisfaction. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.