Talk:Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleTropical cyclone rainfall forecasting was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 26, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
May 24, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
July 4, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
August 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 14, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

New article creation[edit]

This information was split off from tropical cyclone rainfall climatology in order to help out with its length. There also appeared to be enough information to create a separate article with this name. Thegreatdr 18:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The long road to GA[edit]

Quick review[edit]

A few things I found, by quickly doing a review of the article:

  • The article begins talking about the US first, then begins to talk more globally. Shouldn't it use inverted pyramid organization and talk about the global impacts first, then talk about the United States' data? (In other words, would it be better to flip the two paragraphs of the lede?) Done. Thegreatdr 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Between 1970-2004, inland flooding from tropical cyclones caused a majority of the fatalities in the United States.[1]" - you mean weather-related deaths, TC-related deaths, or deaths in general? It is confusing to the unaware reader. Done. Thegreatdr 15:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref for Stan's casualty toll (the TCR will do, I imagine.) Done. Thegreatdr 15:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found that some tropical cyclones can have their highest rainfall rates in the rear quadrant" - left rear or right rear?
    • He had to mean right rear. The text was not this specific. I made the change, but may need a new reference which states this. Thegreatdr 15:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the discussion about the effects of topography in rainfall by Riehl too?
    • Yes. Riehl does mention terrain not being considered for his rainfall calculation. Thegreatdr 15:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref for the "Storm size" section needed.
    • There is one in the section already. I could hunt for a second one. Thegreatdr 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I missed it the first time I went around. Does it cover the entire paragraph? If so, then it should be moved to the end of the paragraph. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double-checking: is the entire "Slow/looping motion on rainfall magnitude" section referenced by Riehl?
    • Except for the first sentence, the section up until the reference was derived from Riehl's table. Thegreatdr 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and outside topographic features" may be a bit too technical for a non-specialist reader. Changed to hills and mountains. Thegreatdr 16:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref for "Vertical wind shear" needed as well. Done. Thegreatdr 19:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I think I understand what the "Interaction with frontal boundaries/upper level troughs" is saying, a rainfall or radar pic there would be incredibly useful.
  • Double-checking: The HRD is part of AOML, right? I added that in to clarify further. -Yes. Thegreatdr 16:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is a definite advantage to using the forecast track with r-CLIPER because it could be run out for as far in the future as a tropical cyclone forecast track is extended" - should it mention that the forecast is usually 120 hours, or not? Not sure if that is the standard forecast timeframe nowadays, or if it is still three days.
    • It is five days. Made the change. Thegreatdr 16:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand the TRaP acronym, at least when it is used for the first time. Done. Thegreatdr 18:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Wikipedia, the GFDL is usually associated with something completely different. I've added a link to the relevant model, but that's something to keep in mind for the future. (On that line of thought, should the link point to GFDL CM2.X instead?)
  • While I can assume why, I'm not sure everyone can figure out immediately why the Kraft rule of thumb was called that way. When and who made it would be ideal here.
    • This has been a surprising difficult factoid to find. It will require some e-mails to see if anyone has the original reference. Even in recent works, when people write about the Kraft rule, no reference is provided. Thegreatdr 16:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Included text within the article to explain why it has that name. Still need to find a reference. Thegreatdr 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the entire text from the 16-in rule of thumb section came from your presentation, put the reference at the end. Otherwise make a copy of it on your website and tag it here, both so we're not the only record of it (which would be awful if someone modified a number), and so we can reference it in case it is indeed changed. (And also, to satisfy WP:V requirements.)
    • The original AMS hurricane conference link (which mentions the 16" amount and related information) appears to be broken. I'll see if I can download into my research section on the HPC page tonight. Thegreatdr 19:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added the reference, though it is no longer online. Thegreatdr 11:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the AMS references can be accessed by searching for it, going through the abstract, and then checking the PDF. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll check it again, but the pdf wouldn't load up when I tried before. Thegreatdr 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It didn't load up for me either. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I like it - it is coming very well. Maybe the book links can be modified slightly to use {{cite book}} and the footnote system, or we could try something new and use the Harvard referencing system instead. (It is seldom used because it is more difficult to set up.) Either way, if those things above are addressed, it should get GA status easily. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional changes made[edit]

We had complete overlap between tropical cyclone rainfall climatology and this article, so I shortened the section relating to TC rainfall climatology. In my view, some climatological aspects do need to be included in this article. Thegreatdr 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOT a GA review, but a heads up[edit]

I'm not ready to do a GA review of this article yet, but one thing that caught my eye is that the lead is inadequate. The big issue is that the lead should contain the title of the article in bold preferably at or near the beginning, for example:

"Tropical cyclone rainfall forcasting is the process of using scientific models and other tools to predict the precipitation to be expected in large tropical weather systems, such as hurricanes and typhoons."

Just a suggestion. Word it how you like, but the lead needs a "lead sentance" containing the title of the article. See WP:LEAD for more information... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing, you use a mix of referencing styles (parenthetical notes and footnotes). Pick one or the other and stick to it. My suggestion is to look at Cricket World Cup (which is a Featured Article) or Plymouth Colony, an article I wrote and referenced most of, for how to use a mixture of references (print and web-based) using all footnotes. The problem is that the references show a mix of styles, and WP:CITE, while it doesn't favor any one style, does say that you should pick one style and stick to it.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead has been changed to be more appropriate for this article. Thegreatdr 21:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reference format should now be consistent throughout the article. Thegreatdr 21:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to fail this article on its lead, but after seeing that it has supposedly been changed to be more appropriate, i'm wondering what's going on here. It's very inaccessable to readers who don't know much about hurricances, and seems to be assuming that the reader already understands concepts which aren't common knowladge. In order, several factors of what? Slow motion of what? The upslope flow of mountains causing rainfall seems to be just assumed, and how is a reader supposed to be aware that the particular mountains of countries in the list are tall enough to cause rainfall more from tropical cyclones? What does "Strong upper level forcing from a trough moving through the Westerlies" mean? Troughs of who now? A Westerly? Why are fatalities mentioned in the lead when its not discussed in the article, and why in the article at all since this is supposed to be about forecasting rather than death tolls? What did the lead look like before it looked like this? Homestarmy 19:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made some additional changes per your comments. Is it better now? Does it still need more work? Thegreatdr 20:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The lead still starts without actually introducing what exactly the subject is. While the title is somewhat self-explanatory, someone very unfamiliar with weather forecasts may have no idea what it means. The first sentence starts by saying that it takes many factors into account, with the assumption that what the subject is has already been said, but...it hasn't been said. "A combination of two of these factors could be especially crippling," is also vauge, how was it crippling, did power go out when the steel mill was supposed to be running, crippling the days profits, or did massive landslides wash away every town in this hurricanes path, killing thousands? "Crippling" could mean either thing and anything in between. Homestarmy 18:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes based on your comments. Just found them...was looking in the wrong section. Thegreatdr 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks much better now, if nobody has identified any other problems, think about re-nominating this for GA status, or get a Peer Review. Homestarmy 16:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After what's been happenning with surface weather analysis, peer review may be best. Thegreatdr 17:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

It does not seem that the issues above have been adequately addressed. The lead is too short for the subject (could be at least two grafs), the references are still mixed, there are some things that should be cited but aren't, and there are a few places where the prose could be ironed out. I will go into specifics about this later.

This has been on GAC long enough and a decision has to be made. Certainly it has the potential once this issues are fixed. Daniel Case 18:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have immediately renominated after its first failure had there not been prompting by the original reviewer. I think I fixed the last case of mixed refs. Cite web should be gone now. Not sure what a second paragraph in the lead would accomplish...the current lead seems to have it all covered. I'll reread it carefully and see where added references would be useful. Only a few people have commented on the article over the past 5-6 weeks, so will eagerly await your specifics. Thegreatdr 18:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you had waited longer Daniel, I was going to suggest how to fix the lead.... Homestarmy 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can always be fixed per the upcoming suggestions and be renominated. =) Thegreatdr 18:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been renominated. Peer review netted one automated review. Thegreatdr 19:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting
SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality A A A A
Neutrality A A A A
Writing A A A A
Sources B B B
Citations B B B
05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

New GA review[edit]

The writing is good. The pictures are all free and proper for the article. However, there are not many sources eventhough there are an average amount of references, which means the article is a bit small, and that is especially the case for the lead. The article is obviously good, but there are formatting WP:MoS issues to address as well as size issues in terms of lead length (should have more paragraphs) and the throughness of citations. The work will be of intermediate difficulty and may take just a few dozen edits, but it won't be that hard. The article has more than 50% chance of passing if you follow my suggestions. Someone else will have the final say.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 05:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has been expanded by another paragraph, which better reflects the article's current content and reflects comments made during the past failed GA review. I'll look through the MoS and see what issues may still exist. The titles of the sections look fine (only the first word capitalized), the special characters have been removed from the headers, numbers and units are separated by nbsp's, and the references all now use the ref format. It is not immediately apparent if any additional MoS issues remain. I'll look into it more. Thegreatdr 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Elonka 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the remaining slant in the headings, added a few more nbsps, and added a 5-day QPF image for Rita from HPC as an example of a tropical cyclone rainfall forecast. Thegreatdr 19:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple other points:
  • The "see also" section should not duplicate links that are already in the article.
  • The article needs another good copyediting pass to fix various typos and grammatical errors: "However, vertical wind shear leads to decrease rainfall amounts". "A strong system moving through the mid latitudes and it associated surface cold front"
I'm also still trying to get caught up with the other discussions above... Do you by any chance use IMs? It could speed up communications. --Elonka 19:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped the see also down to two links that do not appear elsewhere in the article. Will check it over for typos again...fixed the two you mentioned. Please, if you see any others, let me know by writing down examples in the talk page like you have before. Since I'm the primary author, it's harder for me to see them. Thegreatdr 20:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So...any other comments? Has the article improved enough? Thegreatdr 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA fail[edit]

Hi, I have failed this article as GA for the moment. My primary concerns with it are that it has problems with its references and cites but most importantly fails to broadly cover the topic, seemingly covering only matters relating to the United States. I have given my detailed review comments below:

  • 1a - good prose and grammar:
  • pass - very good prose and grammer, in excess of that required by GAC
  • 1b - MOS
  • pass - no major MOS problems
  • 2a - provides references
  • fail - there is no bibliography separate to the footnotes.
  • 2b - cites reliable sources
  • fail - although most cites seem to be to online sources, they are all to reputable sites. However, where published reference books are cited, no page number is given.
  • 2c - no original research
  • pass - no original research in evidence
  • 3a - addresses major aspects of topic
  • fail - article seems to be almost exclusively US-focused with all images and most discussion pertaining only to the continental US. Suggest article name change to "Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting in the US" or else serious rewrite to reflect a phenomenon affecting many mroe regions.
  • 3b - stays focused
  • pass - stays focused on topic
  • 4 - neutral.
  • pass - No problems with the article's neutrality
  • 5 - stable
  • pass - no problems witht he article's stability, no sign of an edit war
  • 6 - images are relevant and properly licensed.
  • pass - all images are on-topic and appear to be properly licensed.

Many thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason most of the images are from/of the United States is because our federal government is one of few (if only) that states that works of the federal government are public domain. It's quite difficult to find anything from Europe, Asia, or Austrailia that is within the public domain. I'll see if I can dig up some examples from elsewhere, but there may be no avoiding its U.S.-centricness in regards to images. Otherwise, I did separate out the rules of thumb into a United States section per your above comments. Thegreatdr 14:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm additionally troubled by your comment regarding 2.a. There's no requirement for an article to have a bibliography and a footnote list; actually, it is generally assumed that the footnote list is the bibliography. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the US-centric information has now been moved to United States tropical cyclone rainfall climatology, and page numbers were added to the book references. This should cover the reviewer's main beef with GA. All I have to do now is add images relating to countries outside the United States, and I think all their issues will have been addresssed. Thegreatdr 16:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third try for GA[edit]

Maybe it should be renominated for GA, as these issues seem to be not issues anymore. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been done. Convert templates have now been added to the article. As usual, weeks have gone by and no review yet. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article more focused on the United States?[edit]

I remain in a quandry regarding the comments made during the recent GA review. One solution to the problem would be to create an article titled United States tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting where the US centered segments late in the article could be preserved. I just wish other countries had presentations or studies available concerning tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting. What do you all think? Thegreatdr 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than making a new article, what about combining that info with US tropical cyclone rainfall climatology? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an option, and if the US-centric information starts getting out of hand, I could then separate the forecast information from the climatology information. Thegreatdr 23:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Tropical cyclone rainfall forecasting[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This 2008 listing has some unsourced statements, which would fail criteria 2 of the GACR. There may also be some prose issues, but I am not experienced with weather-related articles. Spinixster (chat!) 10:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has asked for me to point out prose issues, which I am still not sure of. However, I can point out some unsourced statements:
  • Vertical wind shear section
  • the end of the Kraft rule section
Now that I looked at the article again, it may also need some updating since most of the information was collected in 2007, and surely there would be new information available. Spinixster (chat!) 01:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tropical_cyclone_rainfall_forecasting&oldid=1216797859"