Wikipedia:Peer review/Cloud/archive2

Cloud
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been trying for quite awhile to upgrade it to at least a GA-class article. I have implemented to the best of my ability suggestions that were offered during an unsuccessful GAN (I was not the original nominator) nearly 2 years ago. However I think the article still needs to be made a bit shorter and more concise, but I'm not sure where to make any further cuts. Also, I'm still open to more suggestions to improve the organization and wording of the article. If it's still not ready for a GA-grade, I would like to see if it can be upgraded to a B-status for the time being. Thanks, ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous peer review


 * Overall it looks pretty good. There are a number of short sections, which normally should be avoided per MOS:BODY. Organizationally, shouldn't the "Formation and distribution" section be in the "Throughout the homosphere" section? Since "Throughout the homosphere" applies to all the above sections, shouldn't that section appear before "Tropospheric"? I think that would serve as a useful lead-in introduction to the remainder. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No doubt, the biggest challenges I've had with this article have been with how to organize the sections and how long they should be. I came up with the current sequence of sections during an unsuccessful GAN nearly 2 years ago which I did not initiate because I didn't think the article was ready for it then. The senior editor who was assisting me at the time suggested that after the etymology and history of cloud science sections, the article should go straight into Tropospheric classification because that was what most readers checking out the article would want to read about first. Prior to that, I had put the sections about formation and distribution just ahead of classification for each of the 3 major layers of the atmosphere. If you're suggesting returning to that sequence, I wouldn't need much persuasion to do so. However, I think an editorial consensus might have to be arrived at if there are currently conflicting opinions about how the sections should be sequenced.

As for putting the section "Throughout the homosphere" ahead of those that deal with the troposphere separately, this again raises the question about which topics should lead the article. The pan-homospheric section deals with subjects like coloration and effects on climate which may or may not best be placed ahead of classification. Again, I'll need an editorial consensus to make any major structural changes since I seem to be getting conflicting guidance about this.

There is also the problem of the length of some of the shorter sections. The length of each current section is dictated by how much verifiable information I and some other contributors have been able to come up with for each. The sections about the polar stratospheric and mesospheric clouds might be combined to form a longer section. However the methods of classification used in each of these 2 levels are radically different from each other and both are radically different from the method of classification used in the troposphere, so combining any of these sections for reasons of length alone would be very awkward at best. So I'm gratefully open to any more suggestions, or to any clarifications of suggestions already made. Many thanks. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Article restructure
In response to the Oct. 5 suggestions, I've decided to remove the "throughout the homosphere" section altogether and merge its parts with the tropospheric, polar stratospheric, and polar mesospheric sections. The introductory sections of the article remain pan-homospheric in scope, but the sections that follow are now arranged in the sequence of tropospheric, stratospheric, mesospheric, and extraterrestrial. I hope this creates a more logical structure and flow. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77

 * I feel like the table in the lead should be moved to Etymology because it's basically defining all the terms and classifications and whatnot. That and the entire section is only three sentences
 * Could you just scrap the "Physical forms, étages and genera" heading because eventually I can't tell which is supposed to be a subsection of what?
 * You seem to like subheadings. I don't think there's anything wrong with it but I'm pretty sure you can merge sections

Further changes to article
Thanks for the latest input. I've modified and restructured parts of the article so there are a few less headings and/or subheadings. However, my own experience navigating articles by other editors is that I can find specific information I'm looking for more quickly if the article is well stocked with subheadings. I've encountered some Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia articles where I have to wade through long sections and paragraphs with relatively few headings, which can slow down my reading and research.

I don't think I can eliminate the "Physical forms (etc)" heading altogether, but I've shortened it and provided a better explanation of the cloud classification hierarchy to help sort out the sections and subsections. The classification hierarchy in meteorology is more complicated than in the other sciences. For example, a cloud species can be common to more than one genus at the next level up in the hierarchy, something that would never happen in biology, so explaining or outlining it clearly is a bit of a challenge. A friend of mine who has a degree in English will soon be reviewing this article with me to see where further improvements of any kind can be made.

I also don't think I can move the table in the lead to Etymology just to make that short section longer, because the table is about current nomenclature which is different from historical etymology. The table is about specific proper names currently given to various major cloud types according to the form and altitude range of each. Etymology is about the historical origins of the word 'cloud' and not much else, hence its short length. Also, the table was designed to illustrate some basic points about current classification that are made in the text of the intro, and at the same time, provide a broad overview of the cloud classifications used throughout the homosphere, which includes the mesosphere and stratosphere as well as the troposphere. I've modified the table a bit to make it's pan-homospheric scope more clear. I think all this precludes placing the table anywhere else other than in the introduction which covers all three major layers of the atmosphere where clouds are found. The other sections are either historical in context, or deal with clouds in each of the individual layers of the Earth's homosphere (tropo-, strato-, and meso-), and with clouds found in the atmospheres of other planets.

Since Etymology is such a short section, I've downgraded it to a subsection of the History section. It's heading is now a subheading. The history section also gets into nomenclature, but in a historical context, and further down in the text so there's an orderly progression of topics from etymology to historical nomenclature. I could try and make Etymology a bit longer for better visual balance, but it's already been suggested in an earlier review that the overall article needs, if anything, to be made shorter and more concise, not longer. Making any existing sections longer would run counter to this objective, but maybe my soon-to-be assistant will be able to help me with that.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed removal of history section from cloud article
I'm proposing that most of the section about the history of cloud science and nomenclature be removed from the Wikipedia article 'Cloud', and maybe turned into a separate article with links to the original. The C-rated cloud article is a fair bit longer than other meteorological articles that have received a GA or FA rating. Some senior editors have suggested the cloud article has to be made more concise to be considered for a GA or FA rating. I cut quite a bit of secondary content from this article 2 years ago, and I don't know what additional cuts I can make except to remove this section. The higher rated articles about the other meteorological elements don't have a history section, and I suspect most users who check out the article for a better general understanding of the subject don't need the history part either. I'll wait a while for editor feedback, and if the proposal receives no significant opposition in the next few weeks, I'll give it a try.ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I've now carried out the planned removal/transfer/reduction of much of the history section. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)