Talk:Snow/Archive 1

Archive 1

IDIOT

Whoever wrote this..."Snow fall remains on the ground until it melts." is really going places in life. Congratulations you're an idiot.

That comment was silly, but let's not call other users idiots. That's against wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. It's perfectly appropriate in its context. AliasMe (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We need reference to yellow snow

I placed an explanation about yellow snow and what it is on the page, noticing that it was missing from the article. Some bastard called it vandalism and removed it! I'm offended!! If you agree that there should be a reference to yellow snow, find my version (totally academic and unoffensive) in the history and fix it.Aaronchall 04:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If nothing else, it should be a reference to the Frank Zappa song. Yellow snow is real! - Denimadept 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Photos?

The page seems kind of cluttered with photos. I propose we keep that neat snowflake template thing, but either remove a lot of the subpar and unnecessary photos or move them into the gallery at the bottom of the page, they're cluttering the page, and they aren't very good in quality. ARBlackwood 22:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The images were significantly hindering the article's format. A half dozen of them have been removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Superlatives

[1] Why was this paragraph removed? –radiojon 01:31, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

The highest seasonally, cumulative precipitation of snow was measured on Mount Baker, U.S.A during 1998-1999 season when they received 28 meters or 1,140 inches; this surpassed the previous record holder, Mount Rainier, U.S.A which during 1971-1972 season received a thousand inches (25 m) of snow; and the highest daily precipitation was recorded in Silver Lake, Colorado, U.S.A in 1921 (1.93 metres , 76 inches).

A user complained that it was US-centric. I have clarified that they are world records and returned it. Rmhermen 14:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Now it says:!!!!!!

The highest seasonal total snowfall measured in the United States was at Mount Baker Ski Area, outside of the town Bellingham, Washington during the 1998–1999 season. Mount Baker received 1,140 inches (29 m) of snow,[10] thus surpassing the previous record holder, Mount Rainier, Washington, which during the 1971–1972 season received 1,122 in. (28.5 m) of snow.

This sounds like it's a US-record, but in fact it's a world record. Why was it changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.190.130 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've editted it slightly to clarify that it's a world record, not only a US record. AliasMe (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

is there snow on other planets?

Question. I came here wondering, is there snow on other planets? I guess it wouldn't be water/ice snow, right? It would still be snow right, if it's known to exist. Just wondering, but if it's not in the article already (I might have missed it), it might be a good addition. --Sketchee 14:47, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think snow occurs in the polar regions of Mars, maybe just ice?. Seems that one pole has water snow and the other has carbon dioxide snow, but this needs checking (just my snowy memory :-). Also, perhaps methane snow on Titan - need to check Huygens results. Should be checked out and added to the article. Maybe sometime ... -Vsmith

Utah Picture

Anyone care to explain why it is famous for it's snow? 70.111.224.85 15:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea either. Maybe someone should change the caption...--70.82.44.129 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Utah's snow tends to be dry powder, which is good for skiing.

Can anyone please explain in the article what “base depth” means? When you read ski resort reports, they always show base depth. It cannot be the depth of the snow at the groomed slops – sometimes they say BD is 36”, which is 3 feet, and you can see grass and stones under the snow. Sometimes ski report says BD is 175”, which is 14.5 feet – it’s a good glacier already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.204.110 (talk) 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Short Definition of "Snow Squall"

Isn't it somewhat contradictory to state that something is a "brief ... long storm"?

Would "A brief and (very) intense storm of heavy snow." describe a "snow squal" more accurately?

Why is there no mentioning of the relation to "lake effect snow" as indicated by the link?

Rjacob 10:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowflakes

Could someone pop in an explanation for why it is thought that no two snowlfakes could be the same? (mathematically or otherwise?) -Shadowfax0 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• The definition of "sameness" is kind of vague. People also say lightning never strikes twice in the same place, but tall skyscrapers get struck all the time. So, it's probably just a saying. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-14 21:57

Is there any reason that the snow article does not link to the snowflake article? MCalamari 17:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Beacause the snowflake stub actually has less information about a snowflake than the snow article. Snowflake would be better as a redirect to snow.--Shantavira 13:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

20" snow ≠ 20" water

I'm pretty sure 20 inches of water is not the equivelant of 20 inches snow.

The rule of thumb is that 1 cm of snow is equal to 1 mm of rain.

While a ratio of 10 to 1 is what is often used weather predictors in the US the typical ratios in the US can vary from 10 to 1 up to 25 to 1. Snow ratios can be as low as 3 to 1 and as high as to 100 to l. Weather forcasters in the US are looking for better methods of forcasting than the current one of using the arbitrary ratio of 10 to 1. This is why forcast are so often wildly wrong for snow amounts. See the national weather services page for more details. Could someone else add some of this information to the main article? 131.118.245.253 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lake Tahoe

I removed the paragraph that said that Lake Tahoe was the snowiest place in the country. It's not. And "dozens" of feet do not accumulate there on a regular basis. In fact, I believe that the record single-storm snowfall is barely even two dozen feet, which can hardly be classified as "dozens" anyway. Until someone cites their source for this, then I am removing it. bob rulz 02:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yellow snow

Someone might want to take a gander at this: South Korea gets rare yellow snowfall The bellman 05:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Richard J. Wild - Snow and blizzards, facts and figures

I have restored this link since though it is plainly promotional there seems to be enough material of relevance to make the link justified. TerriersFan 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Snowflakes are NOT always symmetrical!

Under Geometry it is stated that "A snowflake always has six symmetric arms." This assertion is simply not true! According to Kenneth Libbrecht, "The rather unattractive irregular crystals are by far the most common variety." http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/myths/myths.htm#perfection Someone really need to take a look at his site and get FACTS off of it because I still see a decent number of falsities on this page. (forgive me Im new at this and dont want to edit anything) - unsigned comment by User:138.162.0.45

Seems still no one has attended to this. The pictures don't help either. Perhaps we should put up some more random pictures, showing how the majority of snow flakes really show no symatry at all. There is always a hexagonal alignmnet--155.144.251.120 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested picture

I'm requesting that someone find or make a free picture of man-made snow at a magnification comparable to that needed to see an up close image of a natural snowflake. I uploaded a non-free picture from http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class.htm, but it was deleted. In any case, a free picture would be nice. Fresheneesz 19:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Cayambe -- Error?

The article mentions that "the only snow actually to appear on the Equator is at 30 ft altitude of the southern slope of Volcán Cayambe in Ecuador". However the wikipedia entry on Cayambe states "At 4,690 m on its south slope is the highest point in the world crossed by the Equator and the only point on the Equator with snow cover". Since 4,690 m is about 15390 ft, Cayambe would have to itself lie severely below sea-level for both these entries to be correct! I'm fairly certain it's the entry on this page (Snow) that is incorrect --- probably a typo --- but perhaps someone well-informed on this (or ideally the person responsible for the initial entry) could look it over? 137.222.184.130 13:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Snow article is protected??? Mad Wiki Stalinists at Work??

?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.32.246 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I was wondering about this, too...

The page is semi protected so only users who have an account over 4 days old can edit it. You can set up an account for free. It is protected to prevent vandalism.. --h2g2bob 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? When did "Stalinists" become the new insult ????? You capitalistic Dubyas!!! Why are you fighting over the political spectrum? Fact is, one Mason seems to be committing Wikipedia: Vandalism, he's insidiously changing the point at which snow nucleates, and he does have his name in Wikipedia, so protecting the page from those who have *no* accounts might be a cover-up. I am unable to log in not because I want to, but because I lost my password, but you don't want to check that self-appointed inventor.24.184.234.24 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)LeucineZipper

Correction please

GEOMETRY SECTION:

"The most common snowflakes are visually irregular"

Should be "visibly irregular" (unless they've been drinking too much eggnog).

It's been corrected by someone (don't know who) --h2g2bob 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

World Record Snowfall

The world record was recorded at Mt. Baker Ski Area, not Mt. Baker itself which is actually situated nine miles away. While this does not meet the requirements set by the NWS, a glaciologist from Nichols College (MA) who studies the North Cascades claims that snowpack measurements on Mt. Baker (at 8000 feet) suggested snowfall "was no less than 140 feet or 1680 inches during the winter of 1998/99." [2] --Jobe9 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Snow

The third paragraph in the snowflake section is about artificial snow and reads:

Snow machines shoot a mixture of water and compressed air out of nozzles. The water comes out as fine droplets, and the air cools as it decompresses, causing the droplets to freeze. A fan blows the ice particles onto the slopes. Artificial snow is made of frozen water droplets, with none of the elaborate structure found in real snow crystals.

This seems to be copied straight from the page at http://www.its.caltech.edu/~atomic/snowcrystals/class/class.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.223.155.30 (talk • contribs).

You’re right. Thanks for noticing it, and feel free to remove this sort of thing where you find it. —xyzzy_n 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Two snowflakes the same, or not?

The article says that "no two snowflakes will look exactly alike" (top of the snowflake section) as well as saying that "There is a widely-held belief that no two snowflakes are alike, but that claim has not been proven", second from last paragraph in that section. Clarify? 88.110.143.59 08:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's one of those issues that never can be settled. Very tiny ice crystals are usually hexagonal prisms. They have two basal planes (the hexagons, "top" and "bottom"), and 6 "vertical" faces (rectangles). The angles between the faces are 120 degrees. The shape and size of such a hexagonal prism can be chracterized by five parameters: (i) the height, (ii) the largest distance between two parallel faces, (iii) the shortest distance between two parallel planes, (iv) the width of the widest of the remaining two faces, and (v) the width of the last face. The basal planes are usually close to being regular, reducing the parameters (ii)-(v) to only one independent parameter. Give or take a few million water molecules, two ice crystals that are hexagonal prisms can quite easily be very alike. However, as ice crystals grow in the atmosphere, the shape becomes a lot more varying due to the growth and branching of dendrites at the corners. The chance that two macroscopic snowflakes in the history of the world have had identical arrangements of all the quadrllions of water molecules is vanishing. Have two humans who are not identical twins ever had identical genes? Probably not, but proving it is impossible.--Niels Ø (noe) 16:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Given this discussion, I thought this incorrectly sourced bit belonged here where someone with more knowledge than I can evaluate it:

- There is every reason to assume that the number of attributes is infinite and that the possibility of two snowflakes being identical is nil. Claims to the contrary invariably lack sufficient microscopic and/or chemical analysis or assume a finite number of attributes. Even though similarities are common in nature, true identities do not exist The Scientific Worldview.

- Cheers, ParvatiBai 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to leave it, but I think your posting that URL is inappropriate (I removed it from the main article). The way, the truth, and the light 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"However, the number of possible snowflakes per the atomic structure would be based on the number of molecules, and the former number would be very, very large." - This makes no sense to me. I believe it needs to be clarified.

—

The citation for Nancy Knight is:

Knight, N. (1988) "No two alike?" Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 69(5):496

but I can't verify it as the AMS web archive is incomplete. If anyone has access to a physical copy (anyone near the US Library of Congress?),it would be appreciated if you could confirm the citation. Drpixie (talk) 02:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC) I think this should be Wikipedia:Merged with the identical snowflakes section of the talk page. With no deletions please, respect each others' points of view. I actually side with the view expressed here, that processes at the molecular level match in importance the (averaged) conditions where the snowflakes form, but for WP:NPOV I think the other side should have an equal say. 24.184.234.24 (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)LeucineZipper —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.234.24 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Glaciers

The 'Occurrence' heading which I renamed 'Occurrence of glaciation' deals solely with glaciation and probably should be merged into the Glacier. (Glaciation deals with ice ages currently.)

Most of the information in it is already found in Glacier.

Done. The way, the truth, and the light 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Mineral

What about the fact that snowflakes are minerals? 134.250.72.179 23:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Snowpack

Someone has just created a 2-sentence article there. I believe that to be too limited a topic to have its own article and it should be merged here. The way, the truth, and the light 12:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The way, the truth, and the light 13:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Benefits and problems???

Is this some sort of bad joke? Natural phenomena are not primarily to be described by in/convenience for the human population of this planet. Therefore deleting. —AldeBaer 13:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Split snowflake from snow.

A snowflake and snow are different concepts and need different pages. Rain is water, but in many ways they are not the same thing. For example, symmetry isn't a word that it generally makes sense to apply to snow. Deep isn't a workd which applies to a snowflake. The fact that wikipedia is somewhat short on information on snowflakes as distinct from snow en masse is not a good argument for merging the two articles Quirkie 23:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ice?

Shouldn't there be a discussion to why snow is not hail? See introductory paragraph. Wouldn't hail also fit? Congolese 00:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling???

The Snowflake section is full of things that just don't make any sense.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeypoodle (talk • contribs) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Flurry

Flurry is linked to an O/S 99.232.203.75 (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture

I suggest to add featured picture Image:LT-SEM snow crystal magnification series-3 frame.jpg to the article. Visor (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is something preventing you from doing this? - Denimadept (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I did it! ;) Visor (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That definitely fits there. - Denimadept (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

bacteria

Snowflakes need bacteria for nucleation. Each snowflake forms around bacteria. Read all about it: [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.12.169 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I just added this to the article, though I didn't see your post here before I did it. It's not actually all of them, just 85%. Esn (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this information was removed by someone in the intervening months. Does anyone know why it was removed? Esn (talk) 02:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Snowflakes by Wilson Bentley, 1902

Does the image present individual ice crystals or aggregates of them? I think the former but am not sure. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Identical snowflakes/ article problem

First of all, someone put "i love snow" at the end of the beginning section. I can't find it to delete it when I go to edit the page though.

Also, as for the whole "no two snowflakes are identical thing", it has been proven that identical snowflakes do exist. In addition to the astronomically small chance that, of all the snowflakes that have ever fallen, considering many fall under the same or similar conditions, no two are the same, they actually found two identical flakes in the same storm. I think it was in the midwestern US in the 80's or something. Anyway, yeah, not true, identical snowflakes exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.129.75 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Food

....... ...... ..... .... ... .. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.199.117 (talk) 08:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Animation

I've removed the animation, which doesn't show any snow accumulation in the southern hemisphere and is obviously incorrect. These concerns have gone unanswered at the talk page for the picture for more than a year. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Snowmen

The claim that snowmen are adorned with carrot noses, coal eyes and top hats is uncited, and frankly strains credultity. While I have seen artistic representation of snowmen thus attired, can anyone seriously claim that there is a ubiquity of coal and top hats in the northern hemisphere with which to accessorize snow creations? Having recently priced top hats, I know them to be generally in excess of $100 - I can imagine a toque or a baseball cap, or perhaps even a beat up fedora....but a top hat? Unless there is some citation for the claim (again, in actual creations, not artistic representations), then I will feel compelled to edit this section. fishhead64 (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Top hats are very common on snowmen. Maybe not in real life, but certainly in the movies. Here's are some good example of a snowman or snowwoman with a top hat: [4] [5]99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Building a snowman' picture in the article: does anyone think the current picture of a woman in a uniform putting one snowball on top of another one is not very good? Perhaps one of kids building an actual snowman would be better? AliasMe (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Children

Please make sure your children know that cars can have a very difficult time stopping in snow storms, especially on very fresh, fast-falling snow. Kids in my neighborhood run out in front of cars in snowball fights, just assuming the cars will stop dead.

Also, make sure they know that cars that are hit with snowballs have an... EXTRA... hard time stopping.Kingoomieiii (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture to include

I was surprised to see that this amazing picture wasn't in this article. Perhaps someone should find a place for it. It's a snowflake zoomed in up to 36,000X.  :-) --Steve (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Recreation

A mention of winter carnivals as a whole would be appropriate for the "Recreation" section, but to specifically mention the winter carnival of Michigan Technological University seems wrong, since there are many other winter carnivals that are older, better known, or both--I'm thinking of the one at Dartmouth College and the ones in Quebec City and in St. Paul, for instance. (I don't know about those outside North America, but I imagine there are well-established and famous winter carnivals in Europe and Asia as well. As it's written now, it would appear that the MTU winter carnival is the only one in the world. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That would be a useful addition. 99.224.137.2 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture of parked cars in the snow

Regarding the picture of the cars that are apparently 'stuck in the snow' - those cars don't look stuck. They look parked. There's nothing stopping those cars from being driven away, is there? The snow's only a few inches deep. Should this picture be replaced, or the description changed? AliasMe (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

History of research for snow

BC150 or BC 135(?)[6] - 韓嬰, The book titled "韓詩外傳" was talking about, the most flower of tree and grass are pentagon, but snow is hexagon (in Chinese 曰凡草木花多五出雪花獨六出雪花曰霙雪雲曰同雲), such fact is described in Imperial Readings of the Taiping Era

1250 - Albertus Magnus, oldest(?) description of snow

1555 - Olaus Magnus, Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus, oldest snow flake sketches

1611 - Johannes Kepler, Strenaseu De Nive Sexangula, attempting to explain why snow crystal is hexagon

1637 - René Descartes, meteorology/météores in Discourse on the Method, oldest hexagonal sketches and study for snow crystallizing process and conditions

1660 - Erasmus Bartholinus, De figura nivis, sketches of snow crystal

1665 - Robert Hooke, sketches, observation of snow crystal in Micrographia

1681 - Donato Rossetti, La figura della neve, sorting of snow crystal

1796 - Shiba Kōkan, sketches of snow crystal by microscope

1820 - William Scoresby, An acount of the Arteic Regions, the sort of snow crystal

1832 - Doi Toshitsura, snow flake sketches and its description (雪華図説)

1837 - Suzuki Bokushi (鈴木牧之), Hokuetsu Seppu

1855 - James Glaisher, precise sketches of snow crystal by microscope

1865 - Frances E. Chickering, Cloud Crystals - a Snow-Flake Album, graphic illustration on the topic of snowflakes [7]

1870 - Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld, named cryoconite holes - See Introduction

1893 - Richard Neuhauss (German illustrator), Schneekrystalle, photo of snow crystal by microscope

1894 - A. A. Sigson (Russian photographer in Rybinsk), photo of snow crystal by microscope[8]

1901 - Wilson Bentley, photo of snow crystal, on the journal of meteorological society

1903 - Svante Arrhenius, Lehrbuch der Kosmischen Physik, description about snow crystals

1931 - Wilson Bentley and William Jackson Humphreys, Snow Crystals

1936 - Ukichiro Nakaya, artificial snow crystal

1938 - Ukichiro Nakaya, book titled Snow (雪)

1949 - Ukichiro Nakaya, book titled Research of snow (雪の研究, Yuki no kenkyu), - Appearances and its growing process

1952 - M. de Quervain (The Swiss Federal Institute for Snow and Avalanche Research), et al., defined ten major type of snow crystals including hail and graupel in IUGG

1954 - Ukichiro Nakaya, Snow Crystals: Natural and Artificial on Harvard University Press

1983 - Succeeded to make snow crystals in outer space on Space Shuttle Challenger

• Primarily information source are:
  • Omolara Olowoyeye. "DUJS online, The history of the science of snowflakes" (PDF). Dartmouth College (PDF). Retrieved 2009-05-18. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  • "literary, Snow: blooming flower in winter (雪：冬に咲く華, Yuki: Fuyu ni saku hana)" (PDF) (in Japanese). National Diet Library (PDF). Retrieved 2009-05-17. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  • "literary, good day with stars, today too (今日も星日和, kyomo hoshi biyori)" (in Japanese). Personal blog. Retrieved 2009-05-17. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  • "history of research for snow (<雪研究の歴史>, Yuki kenkyu no rekishi)" (in Japanese). acha's bookshelf. Retrieved 2009-05-17. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)

--Namazu-tron (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)--Namazu-tron (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Created new article History of interest and research for snowflake--Namazu-tron (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Subsection for Discussion: History of research for snow

• I would appreciate your discussion here.--Namazu-tron (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • This topic likely needs to be addressed before a FAC run, but for GA, it can probably be sidestepped for the time being, pending the GAN review. It could be expanded into its own article, though it would require substantial cleanup, similar to the kind needed in the types of snow article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what wording is for Acronym of GA, GAN and FAC? --Namazu-tron (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

GA is good article. GAN is good article nomination. FAC is for featured article nominations. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I believe better that "History of research for snow" to be separate article than section in the Snow.--Namazu-tron (talk) 07:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Created new article History of interest and research for snowflake--Namazu-tron (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Good idea. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring of article

While not my favorite topic, this article screamed out for help. It was overwhelmed with imagery which was confusing the placement of the edit tags, making it difficult to edit. The lead was way too short, and there was a long list towards the end of the article. That long list is now its own article, types of snow, which still requires massive cleanup. The lead has been significantly expanded. There are still significant issues with the flow of the prose and the article's organization, but Rome was not built in a day. I fear an outcry about the lost imagery, but years back wikipedia decided that its articles were to be formatted like encyclopedia articles, and image galleries were not considered functional parts of articles. I believe the change occurred in 2006. The images are not gone from wikipedia, simply removed from this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

More reorganization was done to the article today. Some sections were merged, with one section split into two. An image was restored into the article since there is now enough room for it. All the references should now be in a similar format, and there are now several more references within the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A new section was added, and other sections have been reorganized. Only one more section and one more paragraph require references before submission of the article for GAN can occur. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the article is ready for GA. We will need to address the history of snow research (in the talk section above) before sending this article to FAC, however. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Snow/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I pass this article as a Good Article. It is reasonably well written, neutral, stable and well referenced with in-line citations (thus verifiable). The topic is clearly of top importance. Numerous problems were fixed during the review. I am sure some remain and encourage other editors to further improve this article. Extra efforts would be needed (perhaps Peer Review) to bring the article to an A level. Review comments are listed below. Materialscientist (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I know nothing about meteorology, thus be prepared :) The article has a very basic name; thus I expect most of it should be understood by anyone (at least the lead), which is hardly the case now. I shall try to list what I don't understand, but urge you not to wait for comments, but to re-write all "obscure" terms and phrases. The first paragraph of the lead is wrong right from the 2nd sentence on: the article is on "snow", thus I would first describe the object (i.e. maybe 2nd and 3rd paragraphs) and then to move to the "snowfall" and its formation, preferably without those professional terms (see below). "When powdering, snow drifts with the wind, sometimes to the depth of several meters." (lead and section "Types") might be confusing as there is a noun drift in the previous sentence and a verb drift here, with a very different meaning. Also, I can not imagine snow getting down to a depth of several meters (that is how the sentence reads). Neither do I find a reference for this in section "Types" (I searched ref. 21 for "drifts" or "meters" and found no such statement (could be wrong search though). Check now. The wording was slightly off before. We now have two references for snow drifts. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Refs made me understand what you wanted to say. I'll fix the wording here and also for the terms where I asked explanation. Please check if I messed up something. Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC) "However, areas with significant snow each year can store the winter snow within an ice house," seems unconnected with anything. "Snow cover can protect crops." from what ? "while flurries are used for the lightest snowfall" is unclear. Do you mean "word flurry" ? Could you rewrite "can lead to more localized high amounts downwind of unfrozen bodies of water." ? Is it possible to clarify "extratropical cyclones" "comma head precipitation patterns" Sleet - has double meaning. Same with spring (i.e. do not wikify without checking the page first). crud - has an unclear and negative meaning to me. Is it Ok to use it in the lead ? drift - can we briefly explain this at first occurrence? lake-effect snow* Added more about lake-effect snow. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC) poleward (i.e. what is pole ?) Polewards is unavoidable, if we're going to avoid geographically-centered POV. In fact, I just realized I incorrectly said north instead of poleward elsewhere in the article, which needs to be corrected. It needs to be described in a global way, and north isn't going to cut it. I'll get to the other fixes this afternoon. Thegreatdr (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Fine, but then lets explain the term. Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC) The 2nd picture shows US map and says "Preferred region of snowfall in an extratropical cyclone" (?!?) Imagine reaction of a person who does not know much about US and meteorology and came to WP to read about snow, which he/she never saw :-). Can you help him/her to understand what is going on? Possible solutions:(i) better picture; (ii) better figure caption. I tried to clarify the caption, to focus the viewer on the hatched green area. I did a bit of searching, and can't find any graphics that can replace this one. Hopefully, the reader will read the text on the left before viewing the caption, which will generally clarify it for them. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC) The caption is still to jargony and unclear (it sounds like that commahead is stuck in that specific location for the whole winter. I expect to start with something like "an example of .."). Materialscientist (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC) File:Ice and snow ranges - northern.jpg is scary. Permanent permafrost in Mongolia, China and Khabarovsk region (Russia) ? The source actually says "discontinuous permafrost", which I don't understand. Also red line says "100 days of ice on navigable water" Which seems impossible (maybe except for Iceland). Can you check the accuracy of this map ? I am happy with the updated caption, but. The source still says about 180/100 days of ice on navigable water, which I do not understand. I do hope this is because of my ignorance, not because the map is wrong, with all do respect to DoD. This needs a fix (perhaps in the description of the figure). Otherwise, sooner or later someone will come up with same question. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Replaced with a simpler image, showing the extent of snow and ice cover in the Northern Hemisphere on February 15, 2009. I think it's okay to be northern hemisphere centric with this image, since snow and ice cover in the southern hemisphere is mainly restricted to Antarctica and the Andes. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Photograph File:Small snowman.jpg shows a nice woman in uniform, not building a snowman :-) Materialscientist (talk) 09:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Made the wording changes you suggested in the lead. Replaced the snowman image with one that just has a snowman in it. See if the article's prose flows better, and is more understandable now. As for the image, it is from a good source. From what I understand, it is just trying to inform the viewer than not everyone north of that line has permafrost...it merely demarkates is southernmost extent. I reworded its caption. Let me know how the first round of changes went. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Reaction is good. Presubmission state was poor (lazy I would say), especially considering your experience, thus I expect hard work, from you (and unfortunately from me :-) to reach GA level. I hope you don't wish to reach FA status with this article soon. Please rewrite whatever I mess up by correcting. Ref. 2 has wrong formatting and wrong link. Why this PhD thesis is a good ref. (I guess noone can access it (?)) Don't assume laziness when the topic is so potentially broad. Good faith, my reviewer. Just because I'm a meteorologist who's been with wikipedia for years doesn't mean I'm an expert in snow. I am not. I whisked in to save this article, which hadn't been improved in years. There were wording issues I missed within the article, I admit it. But, from what I understand, I'm not supposed to just replace all the text with something new. I'm supposed to work with the pre-existing text in order to show appreciation for the previous work that went into this article. I'm one of those people who has a hard time proof-reading my own work. I'll go through the remaining comments shortly to see how to better address them. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC) No rush. More comments will come. I see this process simply as we (you, I, other editors) do our best to improve WP articles (that is why I quick-fix whatever I notice, instead of pointing). Why I wrote "lazy" - I thought you would see technical blunders with US/UK spelling, refs (the formatting is still inconsistent, but this might be Ok for GA), images, etc. - No offense implied, especially considering my terse and grumpy nature :-). I miss my own blunders in my articles; and I am a friendly person, somewhere deep inside. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I try to be open to UK spelling per issues I've been involved with in past articles, and forgot about their different use of sleet from the United States. I've seen the British "sleat" wording within my home weather station forecast page. I'll see what I can do with the two images...they may just end up being removed as it was difficult to find those two. Mention which references have consistency issues, and I'll fix them. I was trying to use cite web, cite book, or cite journal through the article, though it's possible I missed a couple. The cite format I'm still new to, and was reintroduced to me during the recent Wind FAC, which was my first FAC for a non-list article in over a year. FAC is a very draining process. I'm pleasantly surprised (shocked even) that the article review started so quickly. I'm used to waiting multiple weeks for a GAN review. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Things will slow down during the week. I don't see the problem with the ref 2 formatting or link used. I think I've filled out the information within this ref since you made the comment, which could be why. Within the abstract of the scientific paper (which is good enough as a source by wikipedia standards, from what I understand) it mentions the slow vertical ascent of air within the rainband forced by air lifting over a warm front, which is why it is a reference for that line. The web address is valid and doesn't "404". Thegreatdr (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC) "Snowfall tends to form within regions of upward motion" also "extensive, associated with weak upward motion" - motion of what ? "Snow can fall poleward of their associated warm fronts and within their comma head precipitation patterns.." - this sentence is still unclear (especially "polewards") "in the lee of the warm" - please rewrite that phrase (too jargony for a lead + wrong wikilink). I would avoid "lee" at all. Materialscientist (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Done Thegreatdr (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC) "tend to be wide and stratiform" stratiform needs explanation and a wikilink. Could you rewrite section "Cause" ? Please. It is the front section, and it is the hardest to understand (for me). I also advise moving it somewhere down (deeper - better). Materialscientist (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC) The paragraph "Southwest of extratropical cyclones .." appears unrelated to the topic, that is snow formation. In general, the whole section is poor on that (snow formation), it rather plays with air. The sentence "A temperature difference of 13 °C .." is incorrect and needs rewriting. Materialscientist (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC) It is completely related to lake-effect precipitation formation...in fact, you wouldn't get lake effect precipitation without that temperature difference, which induces the upward motion to create convection to cause the lake effect snow bands. It's virtually impossible to talk about precipitation formation without mentioning it is caused by rising air. How does the section need to be rewritten to make it more understandable? We seem to still be at an impasse here. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Sure. Fine, but. Its all about writing - too much focus on cyclones, bands and bodies. We need transitional phrases (a few words in some cases) saying ".. and here is why the snow comes ..". The sentence "A temperature difference of 13 °C" is incorrect grammatically, as it compares "temperature" with "level" (also "absolute instability" sounds unclear), and I can't understand it yet to rewrite in plain language. Also, could you rewrite the sentence "Atmospheric lapse rate and convective depth are directly affected by both the mesoscale lake environment and the synoptic environment; .." in plain language ? I am sure those terms are normal among professionals, but can and should be avoided on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I've completely reworded the third paragraph, per your comments. It should be much more understandable now, and the sentence structure should make more sense as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Good, but I still can't understand the sentence "A temperature difference of 13 °C ..". The difference is between water in the lake (?) and what, air at 1500m (?) Why height level ? Because clouds form there ? Why 850 mbar (I naively guess pressure is a variable) ? Thus what is primary there, height or pressure ? "warmth and moisture is transported upward" I guess it would do so for any (not only 13 deg) temperature difference. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC) It's a crude measure of instability, looking at the temperature fall-off in the lower layer of the atmosphere. The more the temperature decreases with height, the less stable it is and the more likely ascending motion will occur. The pressure surface and height are roughly related. The higher up in the atmosphere you go, the lower the air pressure. I added the word air in there. When you get a low level temperature inversion, meaning the temperature increases above the earth's surface, the atmosphere is considered stable and clouds such as stratus and fog can form if enough moisture is present, with associated drizzle on occasion. In the case of the air mass which causes lake-effect precipitation, the atmosphere is normally clear upwind of the lakes due to its stability and lack of moisture. I'm going to add a line like that into the article. Maybe it will help. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I crudely rewrote it, avoiding numbers which I found unnecessary there (at least I haven't seen why they are important). Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) If we're going to have degrees C, we also need degrees F for people in North America. Otherwise, your rewording works. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC) From personal experience I know that damage by snowfalls is very different for "dry" fluffy snow (low temperatures) and sticky, nearly melting snow. The latter caused yearly destruction of power lines and trees in the place I lived. Can we cover a bit of that in the article? Materialscientist (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC) The cause of snow needs to be high up within the article structure, because it seems incorrect to talk about snow for most of the article and then try to explain what causes its formation within the atmosphere later on. Other wikipedia articles which have passed GA/FA normally have cause as one of their first sections, such as wind. Damage caused by wet snow while trees are in leaf is covered in the damage section, although it doesn't specifically talk about wet versus dry all by itself. I'll look for a reference to see if this detail has been covered. And yes, the poleward wording (meaning towards the nearest respective pole on the planet) will have to stay to avoid geographically-centered (Northern Hemisphere-centric) POV. Stratiform has been explained within the article now, with a wikilink. It looks like another editor took care of the lee wording soon after you made your comment last night. Think I filled out the remainder of the references with similar information. I've added the wording mentioning it was air which was moving upwards. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) We need to add a bit on sublimation of snow. Materialscientist (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I added a line about the conditions best for sublimation. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC) The part on finding two identical snowflakes should be combined with a short story on thorough attempts in the past to find such identical snowflakes (with number of observation attempts, which was many thousands). Otherwise, non-specialist would not appreciate the uniqueness of that finding. Materialscientist (talk) 10:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC) I'd have never thought of this. I'll see what I can find. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Added a line about this. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Not enough because it centers on one person whereas there were dozens. I've heard Kenneth G. Libbrecht has the largest library of snowflakes, but again, I wouldn't put one person in front here, but just mention massive research in this area. Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) While I see there has been significant research into identifying structures and types of snowflakes, even duplicating them in labs, I've only found 2 that were looking specifically for identical snowflakes and both are within this article. That's not massive. I've been searching online for a couple hours, and still, only 2. Nevertheless, I did expand that paragraph with more information. Thegreatdr (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) Once you wrote acoustic section, could you add on sound produced when walking on snow. Is it due to displacement or breakage of snow crystals? A note on cite journal template. Use doi numbers as much as possible - they are short and never expire, contrary to URL links. I use url links only for articles, which luckily can be downloaded for free somewhere (doi will lead you to the publisher site). My way of adding a regular journal link is to type <ref name=xxx>{{cite journal|doi=10.1121/1.1917020}}</ref> and then run User:Citation bot/use (which you can easily install on your console). The bot will fill up all other fields. Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Well, if you start adding on snow sounds in cinema :-)), you could add that same sound can be produced not only with starch, but also with a mixture of sugar and salt (used for Alexander Nevsky (film)). Materialscientist (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Oh my. I've definitely opened a can of worms. I'll check that article and hope it has a reference. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) So far, the references talk about glass, sand, and salt, but mainly for the appearance of snow. Do you know of a usable reference which mentions the sugar and salt for the snow sound in that movie? Thegreatdr (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC) For that movie they used salt+Naphthalene, but said salt+sugar gives similar effect. Can't find an english ref for that (only russian). Here is a couple 1, 2 for salt and starch. Materialscientist (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Ok. Added the salt reference. Starch was already included within the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Anything else you think is needed for GA purposes? Thegreatdr (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I'll find time to look again through the article. For the moment, I'm not happy at all with ref. 50. The question is not that trivial, and I would prefer a more reliable ref. Materialscientist (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC) It's from a meteorological source. Just like this one. Is that one any better for you? Thegreatdr (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC) I see those particular "meteorological sources" as someones personal pages, i.e. completely unreliable (rumors). Materialscientist (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC) How is it a rumor when it is on the main University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Wyoming web sites, and the source is from their professors? I will check again to see if some book online has this mentioned to help resolve this issue. Although I doubt you'll find this a reliable source, it supports the others, even though it doesn't give a specific temperature. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC) In most universities, stuff members have right for a personal page where they can publish anything inoffensive. This by default does not qualify as reliable source. Ref. 50 is just a peace of plain text, this one looks like a blog, this looks better, but does not seem to tell why does snow squeak. WP (that is I :-) requires something looking more like a research result. No offense here, but there are some borders of reliability which I can not cross. Materialscientist (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Fine. I just wish I knew about this yesterday. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC) How about this one? Thegreatdr (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Sounds like an "official" reply of "specialists" to certified media. I would prefer the original source which those professors used for their knowledge, but if you can't find it, this ref will do. Materialscientist (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC) The change has been made. I've looked through at least 1000 web results concerning this, and this source seemed like the most usable. Perhaps the real source was published many years ago, or stayed independent research, because no journal articles popped up during the search. I checked the AMS journal website, and there's nothing there about this topic. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)