Talk:Rain/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing. Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

This looks to be a very strong GA candidate, and possible FA candidate (but this is not an FAC review). Its comprehensive and well referenced. I've read through it once, and possibly there may be a bit of "techno speak" that needs clarifying, but that is for later in this review.

I will now go through it section by section, but withholding any detailed comments on the WP:Lead until the end. Pyrotec (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'How air becomes saturated (I simplified the title after starting these comments) -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC) - The first sentence makes a claim that is not supported by Ref 1. The amount of water in air can be measured in various units/ratios using various instrumental techniques. To state that it is "measured in grams of water per kilogram of dry air (g/kg),[1] but most commonly reported as a relative humidity", is WP:POV unsupported by reference. Its also contradicted by the statement about Dew point, which is not a mass-mass ratio. Pyrotec (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See if the recent changes work for you. I changed the wording to say that atmospheric moisture is commonly referred to as relative humidity, instead of most commonly, and added a reference for the RH definition. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "measured in grams of water per kilogram of dry air (g/kg)" that I object to the most (moisture can be measured as a ratio by mass/mass, mass per volume and/or Dew Point). I'm happy with the changes to relative humidity. Pyrotec (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a better reference for mixing ratio's units being in g/kg. This is a well-known moisture variable in meteorology circles, so I added a better reference rather than removed the g/kg portion. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the text; as the sentence did not make any mention of Mixing Ratios.Pyrotec (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - The moisture bit is understandable; but is followed by technobable, i.e. "An elevated portion of a frontal zone forces broad areas of lift". What is this in English (US or British)?[reply]

See if the new wording and the associated graphic help explain the "elevated portion of a frontal zone" situation better. Although I cannot identify technobabble myself after being in the meteorology field for the past 19 years, I can try to clarify it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I can understand that. Well that's 19 years more than me; but I have 10 years on moisture determination in the low parts per million (-70 °C to -75 °C Dew Point). Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - I would have said that "Water vapour normally begins to condense on condensation nuclei such as dust, ice, and salt in order to form ~~clouds~~ droplets of water or ice depending on the temperature in the sky"; and the next section (Formation) is all about droplets.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - The article does not help with the fundamental question "what is a cloud? - it total ignores it; altostratus is a link to a Super Mario BroS Game, Cirrostratus cloud mentions ice-crystals and Stratus cloud fails to mention water/ice.[reply]
Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - I presume that a cloud is a parcel of saturated air, but this is a potential GA, why should I need to make presumptions.[reply]

See if the recent changes address the cloud definition issue. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - Section sequencing / logic: the logic is: discuss saturation (good discussion of dew point); cooling it is one way of achieving this; discussion of condensation nuclei and technobable (which needs fixing) about clouds; then discussion about adding water. I understand the two ways of making it air saturated, i.e. cool it or add some more water; but should not the condensation nuclei and the clouds be discussed after the discussion of the two ways of achieving saturation, not just after cooling?[reply]

Made an attempt to move the cloud/condensation nuclei information to the end of the section, per your comments. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC) - Acidity -[reply]

There is some ambiguity about "Distilled water, which contains no carbon dioxide, has a neutral pH of 7." If it is saying that carbon dioxide-free distilled water has a neutral pH of 7 then I'm prepared to accept it. If it is saying that Distilled water has a neutral pH of 7; and is carbon dioxide free, then I'm going to object. Pyrotec (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an inclusive list. Sulfuric acid and/or sulfurous acids can also be formed, the former from sulfur dioxide from man-made combustion processes and from volcanic actions. Pyrotec (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe both concerns should now be addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Causes -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC) - The final paragraph of Formation gives (understandable) information about Intensity and duration of rain; and a mention of hail. This section has three subsections on "mechanism", one on tropics and one on human influences. I'm not sure that this article explains why it rains as opposed to sleet, snow or hail. I would have expected something, possibly in this section.[reply]

This has been added, with the appropriate references. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, but "comma head" precipitation is that a reference to "shape"?

I've added more about comma heads to the pattern section. Yes, the precipitation pattern is in the shape of a comma. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Y Pyrotec (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC) - Frontal activity -[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand the first sentence.

Took a stab at clarifying this sentence. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Human influence -

You've nice covered "unintentional" effects such as pollution and Urban Heat Islands (which we did in depth), should we be mentioning deliberate attempts. At one time clouds were being seeded with silver iodide (?) to try and make rain?

Added a section about it. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement -
- Gages -

Comment: In the UK we tend to use the term Met office, presumably "Meteorological Office" is considered too difficult.

Added the phrase "or met" after weather office, per your comment. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Intensity -

Comment: Again, the UK tends to use slightly different terms/definitions, (see | Met office Fact sheet No 3, Page 6)

I would have thought the AMS would take care of that, but no matter. I've made an attempt include the different definitions per your reference, which now includes a line for violent rain. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

A comprehensive, very well-referenced and illustrated, article. A possible WP:FAC.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status on the basis that it is positioned some way between GA and FA. It's going to need some copyediting work to get through FAC, a WP:PR would help and there is WP:Overlinking and grammar to be addressed; but it's still an outstanding GA. Congratulations on your work. Pyrotec (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]