Station model has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Created the article to help support both the surface weather analysis and weather map articles. Thegreatdr 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am having a hard time finding an image that shows all the cloud symbols from a .gov source. If anyone finds one, upload it and include it into the article. After that is done, I think we can submit the article for GA. Thegreatdr 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
This is a difficult topic to write. You're trying to describe a graphic in words. You have a great start and have obviously worked hard on this. If you can clean up the writing, you should renominate this.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Wshallwshall ( talk) 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
After the copy edit, resubmitted the article for GAC/GAN. In the reassessment section, a reviewer mentioned it should have been failed, but was unspecific. Please, point out individual instances within the article that need to be improved, or there is little that can be done to improve the article. Thegreatdr ( talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your dedication to this article and your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm a meteorologist, so I understand how difficult it can be to make topics clear, but still remain technically accurate.
I think you still have some work to do, but you seem to be willing to respond quickly. Since you are committed to your articles, I hope you will revisit the suggestions I made in my first review.
You might consider looking at Wikipedia:Layout. Some especially relevant points from that guideline:
Also, consider the following from Wikipedia:Writing better articles
Finally, you might consider looking at Wikipedia:Embedded_list#Lists_within_articles.
Best of luck with your second attempt. Wshallwshall ( talk) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The reassessment discussion has now been closed as the article was renominated at GAN. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thegreatdr... you've done a good job of addressing the issues presented. I read your user page... congratulations on all the articles you've contributed! I hope you can add this article to your collection of GA awards. It seems like it is almost there. I just have a few suggestions.
First, consider changing as much as possible into active voice. Right now the article is a bit dry and technical. If you changed some sentences to active voice, it would make the topic both more understandable and more interesting. For example,
"When analyzing weather maps, a station model is plotted at each point using either its surface weather observation or its observation aloft based upon its radiosonde or pilot report."
might be...
Meteorologists use the station model to plot complex weather observations onto maps. A forecaster or a computer draws a station model for each observation location. The plotted station model can show either the surface conditions or the weather aloft, reported by either a weather balloon's radiosonde or a pilot's report. Once the maps are complete, meteorologists can see patterns in wind, air pressure, cloud cover, and more.
That's just one possibility... there are several places that could use active voice.
The second point follows along with that: I think needs more about how meteorologists and aviation use a station model. Station model maps are dense, cluttered, and unfriendly. So, why are they so useful? (I tried to touch on that in the example, above.) I'm imaging the days before computers, when some poor guy had to draw station model maps by hand... then play connect the dots to see patterns. (Maybe I'm wrong about how that was done... I'm just imagining the way it might have been.) That also will get to the history thing mentioned by Geometry guy.
Third, I think it might be interesting to mention which sections are more useful for meteorology vs. aviation. (I've seen mentions that the right side is for wx folks... aviation cares about the other stuff.)
I hope the suggestions help. Wshallwshall ( talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thegreatdr... Per your request on my talk page, I've taken another look at the article. I looked at it vs. the Good Article Criteria. In particular, I was looking at criteria 1:
"It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1] "
Rather that post other suggestions, I've made some changes to the early part of the article. My goal was to make some elements more clear and reduce some jargon.
I know you have a lot invested in this article. Additionally, you're more of an expert in the area (it's been years since I've worked as a meteorologist). I hope you'll take the edits as a starting place and as helpful. Of course, please feel free to correct anything that doesn't seem right to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshallwshall ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article against the GA criteria, and this is what I've found:
Congratulations! I believe this article meets the criteria for a GA. However, I would suggest expansion before taking it to FA, if that is your intention. Some of the sections look a little short. Good luck on any future ambitions you may have for this article! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wind barb article at present is quite inferior to the presentation of the topic here at Station model#Plotted winds. Either the majority of the text in that section should be merged into Wind barb, or Wind barb's text and graphic should be deleted and changed into a redirect to Station model#Plotted winds. – Wdfarmer ( talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In this article, would it be possible to be a bit more precise (or add a reference to a standard, etc.)? In particular, are wind speeds rounded to the nearest feather, or rounded down? For example, would 8 kts be shown as a half-feather (rounded down) or a full feather (to nearest)? I ask because for a light aeroplane pilot 10 kts and 14.99 kts are very different. I've googled for this without success. Thanks! quota ( talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Station model's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Plymouth State Meteorology":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Station model. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Station model has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Created the article to help support both the surface weather analysis and weather map articles. Thegreatdr 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I am having a hard time finding an image that shows all the cloud symbols from a .gov source. If anyone finds one, upload it and include it into the article. After that is done, I think we can submit the article for GA. Thegreatdr 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
This is a difficult topic to write. You're trying to describe a graphic in words. You have a great start and have obviously worked hard on this. If you can clean up the writing, you should renominate this.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Wshallwshall ( talk) 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
After the copy edit, resubmitted the article for GAC/GAN. In the reassessment section, a reviewer mentioned it should have been failed, but was unspecific. Please, point out individual instances within the article that need to be improved, or there is little that can be done to improve the article. Thegreatdr ( talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations on your dedication to this article and your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm a meteorologist, so I understand how difficult it can be to make topics clear, but still remain technically accurate.
I think you still have some work to do, but you seem to be willing to respond quickly. Since you are committed to your articles, I hope you will revisit the suggestions I made in my first review.
You might consider looking at Wikipedia:Layout. Some especially relevant points from that guideline:
Also, consider the following from Wikipedia:Writing better articles
Finally, you might consider looking at Wikipedia:Embedded_list#Lists_within_articles.
Best of luck with your second attempt. Wshallwshall ( talk) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The reassessment discussion has now been closed as the article was renominated at GAN. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thegreatdr... you've done a good job of addressing the issues presented. I read your user page... congratulations on all the articles you've contributed! I hope you can add this article to your collection of GA awards. It seems like it is almost there. I just have a few suggestions.
First, consider changing as much as possible into active voice. Right now the article is a bit dry and technical. If you changed some sentences to active voice, it would make the topic both more understandable and more interesting. For example,
"When analyzing weather maps, a station model is plotted at each point using either its surface weather observation or its observation aloft based upon its radiosonde or pilot report."
might be...
Meteorologists use the station model to plot complex weather observations onto maps. A forecaster or a computer draws a station model for each observation location. The plotted station model can show either the surface conditions or the weather aloft, reported by either a weather balloon's radiosonde or a pilot's report. Once the maps are complete, meteorologists can see patterns in wind, air pressure, cloud cover, and more.
That's just one possibility... there are several places that could use active voice.
The second point follows along with that: I think needs more about how meteorologists and aviation use a station model. Station model maps are dense, cluttered, and unfriendly. So, why are they so useful? (I tried to touch on that in the example, above.) I'm imaging the days before computers, when some poor guy had to draw station model maps by hand... then play connect the dots to see patterns. (Maybe I'm wrong about how that was done... I'm just imagining the way it might have been.) That also will get to the history thing mentioned by Geometry guy.
Third, I think it might be interesting to mention which sections are more useful for meteorology vs. aviation. (I've seen mentions that the right side is for wx folks... aviation cares about the other stuff.)
I hope the suggestions help. Wshallwshall ( talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Thegreatdr... Per your request on my talk page, I've taken another look at the article. I looked at it vs. the Good Article Criteria. In particular, I was looking at criteria 1:
"It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1] "
Rather that post other suggestions, I've made some changes to the early part of the article. My goal was to make some elements more clear and reduce some jargon.
I know you have a lot invested in this article. Additionally, you're more of an expert in the area (it's been years since I've worked as a meteorologist). I hope you'll take the edits as a starting place and as helpful. Of course, please feel free to correct anything that doesn't seem right to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshallwshall ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article against the GA criteria, and this is what I've found:
Congratulations! I believe this article meets the criteria for a GA. However, I would suggest expansion before taking it to FA, if that is your intention. Some of the sections look a little short. Good luck on any future ambitions you may have for this article! — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wind barb article at present is quite inferior to the presentation of the topic here at Station model#Plotted winds. Either the majority of the text in that section should be merged into Wind barb, or Wind barb's text and graphic should be deleted and changed into a redirect to Station model#Plotted winds. – Wdfarmer ( talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
In this article, would it be possible to be a bit more precise (or add a reference to a standard, etc.)? In particular, are wind speeds rounded to the nearest feather, or rounded down? For example, would 8 kts be shown as a half-feather (rounded down) or a full feather (to nearest)? I ask because for a light aeroplane pilot 10 kts and 14.99 kts are very different. I've googled for this without success. Thanks! quota ( talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Station model's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Plymouth State Meteorology":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Station model. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)