Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Weather front/archive2


 * 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 not promoted 19:02, 9 April 2008.

Weather front

 * previous FAC (12 February 2008)

Ok, I did a good amount of work to this already-good article, and nominated it around two months ago. There were some good points raised, and it did not manage to be promoted. Since then, I believe I have addressed everybody's concerns, and I now fail to see what prevents this from being close to perfect; I think this is very worthy of being featured. I'l gladly fix any issues, and I appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Juliancolton The storm still blows...  19:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please close and archive the peer review, per instructions at WP:FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry about that, I thought the PR was already closed. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  20:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * The Roth reference needs a publisher.
 * Tool linkie thing checks out. Otherwise looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Roth reference has no publisher; David Roth published the website himself. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  22:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true; Thegreatdr works for the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center. I've fixed the ref. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I knew that, but I didn't know that the HPC published that site. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  23:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The URL is hosted at the HPC's website, so for our intents and purposes, it is. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's fixed, and everything else looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a worthy nomination that I hope passes. However, the prose needs polishing first. See if you can find someone new to sift through it. Here are random examples.
 * Someone who is not interested in meteorology doesn't know the airmass classification system used in the lead image, so it should be described in its caption. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe a simpler image would be better. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The image itself is excellent, but a quick explanation of the system would be nice. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Anything else? Juliancolton The storm still blows...  23:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The two images in the warm front section cause a narrow column of text to be produced in browsers at small resolutions. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 00:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  00:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Opening sentence: "significant weather"—I'm struggling with the concept. Significant water.
 * Done


 * Repeated links (such as "weather")—why?
 * Done


 * "ground based"—what's missing? And I think the link to "sea level pressure" needs to be piped to "sea-level pressure". This applies even to good AmEng.
 * Done


 * "A cold front's location is at the leading edge of the temperature drop off, which in an isotherm analysis would show up as the leading edge of the isotherm gradient, and it normally lies within a sharp surface trough." Rather than the ungainly possessive apostrophe, why not "A cold front is located at ..."? Can we change the conditional to indicative: "shows up as"?
 * Done


 * And down the bottom: "Fronts are generally guided by winds aloft, but they normally move at lesser speeds." or "move more slowly? Although that might give wrong emphasis; at least "do not move as fast".
 * Done


 * Refs—pity there aren't more authors stated. For example, who wrote UNH's lessons? Tony   (talk)  06:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got most of those, and I hope it addressed most of your main concerns. The only thing which may be impossible is the authors in the refs. I double checked for authors, and any ref that doesn't have an author stated does not have an author. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some copyedit notes: Maralia (talk) 01:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Shyamal (talk) 03:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomenon." - this needs pluralization (of meteorological phenomena).
 * While it makes sense to mention both shearline and shear line once, after that, please pick one and use it consistently throughout.
 * For the caption starting " A guide to the symbols for weather fronts that may be found on a weather map", I would reduce the explanatory caption text to 'Weather map symbols:'. Please add nonbreaking spaces between each number and the first word of the following text; unfortunate line breaks make it difficult to read this.
 * The section header 'Types of front' is awkward; suggest 'Front types'.
 * "A similar phenomenon to a frontal zone is the dry line" - can a 'frontal zone' be more explicitly defined prior to this?
 * The image captions "Tropical wave formation." and "Convective precipitation." should not have a full stop.
 * Please add context for 'haboob'; a few words would preclude the need to click a link to figure out what it is.
 * "showers, thundershowers and related unstable weather" - elsewhere you have used serial commas
 * "and the presence of a jet max" - a what?
 * "Although, not all fronts produce precipitation or even clouds; moisture must be present in the air mass which is being lifted." - this is awkward; can you rework it into a single flowing sentence?
 * "Fronts are generally guided by winds aloft, but do not move as fast." - as quickly
 * Please add publishers to all references.
 * Image placement needs review: the images in 'Warm front' and 'Precipitation produced' should be right-aligned so as not to affect the section headers above and below them.
 * Thanks for the comments, I'll get right no those. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  12:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've fixed everything except for the references. You see, the majority of the references do not have a way to find out the actual author, so as it usually is done around these type of articles, the publisher is used as the author. I know it sounds strange, but if you look at many of the other weather-related articles, it will likely have a similar issue. Juliancolton The storm still blows...  12:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments as a mostly lay reader (realizing that all undergrad meteorology knowledge has evaporated)
 * The pictures are really nice and attractive !
 * Would like to see more of the terminology covered - see
 * The origins of fronts are covered in some types of fronts but not others.
 * Some unlinked technical terminology - "lee troughs"
 * Article structure, would be good to have this starting from the origins of fronts, going on to the classification based on origin and behaviour - and then to the interpretation of field signs and map symbols.
 * Comment beautifully illustrated. I'm bothered by some readability issues around looong sentences and jargon. For example, this cracker: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits apart into two streams, with the resultant Mesoscale Convective System (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." --Dweller (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now.
 * The article seems to jump into a section without really describing what a front is (I know it's in the lead, but the first section in the article body just doesn't really fit). I realize that it needs to go first so that people can make sense of the subsequent illustrations, but maybe there is a way to redo the first sentence to make it focus more on weather front again?
 * It might be good to have an introductory paragraph at the beginning of the front types section, that, in 2-4 sentences, discusses briefly the types of fronts. That way it isn't as jarring to get into a list of the front types.
 * I know very little about weather, and it was difficult for me to follow some of the section because there was so much jargon. The article is fairly short, and I think it should be expanded a bit to briefly explain some of the terminology so that lay people will understand it a bit better.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.