Talk:Climate of North Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleClimate of North Carolina 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 14, 2008Good article nomineeListed

General review[edit]

While I can't really review this article for GA, since I contributed portions of it, I think the stubby sections concerning Spring and Fall are going to be problematic. Adding detail, such as when the low level wedge (cool with low clouds and drizzle within an easterly flow regime) finally gives up for the spring (if there's a reference) or first becomes a problem in the fall, when advection fog is a concern across the state due to the advection of high dew point air over cool near shore SSTs between fall and spring, or when severe weather is most expected across the state (whether it is spring, summer, or fall) could be useful in filling out the season portions of the article. Also, every time a certain weather event is mentioned with specifics, an inline reference should be included whether or not there is a wikipedia article created concerning the event (i.e. the 2000 and 1989 references within the snow section). Thegreatdr (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add stuff to those sections. Do you think we should get rid of some of the info about notable storms in the snow section? It doesn't seem neccesary to me and to be honest, is somewhat confusing. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 22:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No harm mentioning the most important snowfall in there. You can always create a separate article on Notable snowstorms in North Carolina with all the info currently in the climate article. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I didn't mention before was the reference format at the bottom. For GA, it needs to be consistent. In other words, pick either ref or cite web and stick with it. Also, the way it appears on the page needs to be consistent. This would mean that if an author is listed for one reference, it would need to be listed for all references. Same deal with article names and retrieval dates. Thegreatdr (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 15:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of March 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Needs just a couple more citations
3. Broad in coverage?: Needs info on severe weather
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass


Overall, very near to Good Article criteria, just needs a few tweaks. I know Thegreatdr has been over this above, but you need to include info about severe weather activity in the state.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need an actual section about precipitation across NC. In the most recent version, the rainfall section only talked about tropical cyclone rainfall, so I moved it into the hurricane section. A general section regarding rainfall/precipitation distribution on an annual basis within NC appears to be needed. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea, but also a severe weather section is needed. Otherwise, it looks really nice. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved the rainfall/precipitation dilemna. The weather section generally covered precipitation, so renamed it precipitation, and split hurricane out of the section to make it a higher tier header. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I like dr's layout better than the old one. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 20:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like me to continue helping, we have to come to a decision regarding convert templates. Are we using them, or are we not? I was under the impression that the consistent use of convert templates was good for GA passage. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that convert templates should be used in all articles where there is a need. Since I am the one reviewing this, I believe for a GA you need convert templates. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is great to know, since you're reviewing it. =) There is one place where a convert template cannot be used. There is a line concerning temperature differences in F (a temperature rise of bla bla F). Since the base of the F and C scales are not aligned (meaning 0C does not equal 0F), as far as I know, a convert template can't be used in that line. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I can't think of anything to do with that either. Still waiting on the severe weather section. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image for future use[edit]

The annual average rainfall map for North Carolina is downloadable from a .gov source. The link is http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/images/preview/precip/pageprecip_nc3.gif, in case the precipitation section ever gets large enough for its inclusion. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of March 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass, maybe more content in "Severe weather" section, if it is found
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Great job improving the article. Sorry I didn't review it earlier. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. --Mr.crabby ''''' (Talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humid Continental Climate??[edit]

I'd like to point out that western North Carolina's climate should definitely not be classified as humid continental. In the eastern United States, humid continental climates occur almost exclusively at latitudes of at least 40°N. The map at http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/pdf/kottek_et_al_2006_A1.pdf easily supports this observation, as well as the map on the Köppen Climate Classification page. In fact, both of these maps are from very reliable sources, and the map that exists on the Climate of North Carolina page completely contradicts these reliable sources. The two maps that I just mentioned show the vast majority of North Carolina to be humid subtropical (Cfa), with the Appalachian mountain region shown as Cfb, which is labeled by the Köppen system as Maritime Temperate/Oceanic. It seems like the majority of sources out there agree with that, so I think we should change this article as well as the main NC article to describe western NC's climate as oceanic rather than humid continental. sbrown146 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could be right that the a/b line does fall below the C/D line elevation-wise if -3°C and not 0°C is used (I don't know if any still fall in Cfb if the latter is used). Some mountaintops actually fall in Dfb, but there are very few locations in such zones and it is not reflected in the article. No part of North Carolina falls into humid continental based on latitude alone (that is generally around 36-40°N with the lower latitudes in the Plains and higher latitudes on the coast based on the modern boundary and around 38-41°N based on the traditional boundary), so that is not an issue. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The maps that I was using obviously use the traditional -3° isotherm, so D climates are non-existent in NC if we do in fact use the -3. I know there has been heated debate all over wikipedia over whether to use the -3 or 0, but most users agree with the -3. (See [1] and scroll towards the bottom to see a discussion there. As of now, I think for the Climate of NC article we should leave the subtropical highland description that links to the Cfb climate, since the most accurate Kopppen maps describe the southern Appalachins as Cfb. sbrown146 (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate of North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Climate of North Carolina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate of North Carolina. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate of North Carolina. 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) 04:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Climate of North Carolina. 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) 13:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_of_North_Carolina&oldid=1206722897"