Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Extratropical cyclone

Extratropical cyclone

This is without a doubt a Self-Nomination, as I have put in a substantial nuber of edits to this article (currently my most editid article actually) along with Thegreatdr, just to make it clear. I'm nominating it as it has come a long way since it's successful GA review, with stylistic and content contributions, as well as additional sources. I believe that as a scientific subject that would normally be explained in an incridibly complicated and jargony manner, it is presented in terms that are about as simple as they can possibly get without loosing the encyclopedic standard of accuracy it deserves. It covers every significant facet of Extratropical cyclones, and the language used has a minimum of redundancy with an optimal flow. The images (and their captions) are informative and descriptive, and tie into their appropriate sections well. Those items of jargon which are nessecary have either been explained, or wikilinked to a page/section explaining the term. I honestly believe that it meets FAC criteria, and while there may possibly be one or two issues in places, I don't feel that there's anything there that needs significant and exhaustive work. Please accept this nomination, and I look forward to reading (and responding to (in words or in work!) your responses where appropriate. --Crimsone 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per above. CrazyC83 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments From a user who has very little background in meteorology.
  • An extratropical cyclone, sometimes inaccurately called a cyclone, is a synoptic scale low pressure weather system that has neither tropical nor polar characteristics, being connected with fronts and horizontal gradients in temperature and dew point otherwise known as "baroclinic zones". That first sentence is certainly a mouthful (and confusing to me, especially that "being").
  • These are the everyday phenomena which, along with anticyclones, drive the weather over much of the Earth. I was confused about what the word "these" was referring to. Extratropical cyclones? Depressions and lows?
  • I'd suggest covering the effects of these cyclones in the lead. Also, the last sentence of the lead (to me at least) is pretty jargondy and confusing.
  • I'd recommend putting the satellite photo of Cyclone Florence at the top, rather than the current, more technical one.
  • The figure given by the study of the Northern Hemisphere may call into question that yielded by the study of the Southern Hemisphere. How come it's the southern study's results that are called into question? Why not the other way around? Elaborate here.
  • I notice that the section Extratropical transition includes metereological words/phrases that are italicized. Why here, and nowhere else?

Gzkn 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That first sentence is certainly a mouthful (and confusing to me, especially that "being").

Will get back to that one. Done

I was confused about what the word "these" was referring to. Extratropical cyclones? Depressions and lows?

Done.

I'd suggest covering the effects of these cyclones in the lead. Also, the last sentence of the lead (to me at least) is pretty jargondy and confusing.

Done, except for that last sentence. I don't know how that could be better put, but I'll think hard about it.

I'd recommend putting the satellite photo of Cyclone Florence at the top, rather than the current, more technical one.

Intense extratropical cyclones can be difficult to recognise apart from subtropical ones for lay people looking at sattelite photo's. I don't know about those in the US, though I've seen something similar ofer there, but on TV weather forecasts in the UK, a map like is often shown and would be recognised instantly for what it was. It's also taught in highschool geography. It's there really because it's the best and clearest descriptive image of what an extratropcal cyclone is.

Ah I see. Yeah, I definitely would not be able to recognize it as such (I'm from the U.S.) I'll leave this up to more meteorological minded people to debate. Gzkn 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How come it's the southern study's results that are called into question? Why not the other way around? Elaborate here.

It appears that the source for the southern study had been incorrectly read. What it actually says though is slightly more complicated. lol

I notice that the section Extratropical transition includes metereological words/phrases that are italicized. Why here, and nowhere else?

Done - there was no valid reason for it.

Thanks very much for the input :) Crimsone 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was quick...I got interrupted in the middle of my reading so I actually still hadn't gone through the entire article. Will post further comments below:

- "warm core" is redlinked (does it even need a link though?)

- Italicized words: subtropical cyclogenesis, bomb, cyclonic. Also saw quotation marks identifying metereological phrases. Do these phrases need to be set apart in some way for the readers? If so, keep the style consistent (I'd prefer italics).

- This theory still retains much merit over continental landmasses. I'm assuming this means when the cyclones are over continental landmasses and not when the theory is...

- Might want to give the first names of Shapiro and Keyser and some information on who they are.

- A warm seclusion is the mature phase of the extratropical cyclone lifecycle conceptualized by Shapiro and Keyser after the ERICA field experiment of the late 1980s, which produced observations of intense marine cyclones that indicated an anomalously warm low-level thermal structure, secluded (or surrounded) by a bent-back warm front and a coincident chevron-shaped band of intense surface winds. Quite a long sentence.

- The first, third, and fourth paragraphs of Warm seclusion lack sources.

- OK, so in the very beginning, it says that extratropical cyclones are sometimes inaccurately called cyclones. I see a lot of usage of just "cyclone" in the text of this article though. Are you sure that all these instances refer to cyclones and not extratropical cyclones?

- First sentence of Severe Weather: might want to link "lee troughs" to something, as a layperson (like me!) is unlikely to know what they are.

- OK. All done for real! :)

Gzkn 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"warm core" is redlinked (does it even need a link though?)

Not really. I've removed it :) Done

Italicized words: subtropical cyclogenesis, bomb, cyclonic. Also saw quotation marks identifying metereological phrases. Do these phrases need to be set apart in some way for the readers? If so, keep the style consistent (I'd prefer italics).

I think the only reason for it is to set meteorological terms apart from the text to avoid confusing the reader. Of course, it may not be nessecary, and I've not seen it elsewhere on wikipedia. I'll leave it to whatever consensus says. Italics have been removed for now to maintain consistency of style. Done

Quite a long sentence.

I agree. I'll see if it can be shortened. Split sentence into two sentences. Done

The first, third, and fourth paragraphs of Warm seclusion lack sources.

I (or somebody else) will take a look. I've added sources for two of those aragraphs. For now, I've left a "citation needed" tag on the third in the hope that another editor might know the source. If not, I'll continue looking myself. Done.

OK, so in the very beginning, it says that extratropical cyclones are sometimes inaccurately called cyclones. I see a lot of usage of just "cyclone" in the text of this article though. Are you sure that all these instances refer to cyclones and not extratropical cyclones?

Cyclone is a bit of a 'catch all term. It's quite common in meteorology or common language alike in such a situation to refer to the full descriptive term at first to ensure that people are looking at the right thing, and then to use the general term from then on. Really speaking though, they are the most "basic" type, and so are sometimes incorrectly considered as just Cyclones for that reason. That's not what the article is doing however - after beign defined as "extratropical", each time the word cyclone is mentioned without a qualifying term, it refers to the type of cyclone the reader is reading about. To add "extratorpical" in every iteration of the word cyclone whould be quite tiresom on the reader, and make the subject appear (aesthically speaking) very complex.

First sentence of Severe Weather: might want to link "lee troughs" to something, as a layperson (like me!) is unlikely to know what they are.

No, I must confess, I have no clue either. Maybe another editor will. a quick google tells me what they are. I will wikilink it. Done.Crimsone 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, red links definately are not disqualifying for featured article quality. Warm core is a needed article in my opinion, or an article distinguishing cold core/warm core systems. Maybe that red link should stay. -Runningonbrains 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Questions Why is there so much on cyclogenesis in the Surface pressure/Wind distribution section...seems out of place. Also, I removed the reference to Shapiro and Keyser as it doesnt even seem relevant, so that should no longer be an issue. -Runningonbrains 09:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually not had much to do with the Surface pressure/Wind distribution section other than sources and stylistic issues. Being part of the structure section, it's trying to explain how the windfield changes. Of course, that's hard to do without mentioning anything to do with cyclogenesis. There is a lot of repetition though, and so I am taking a look presently. I honestly don't know though what I can seperate out and remove, so I don't know whetehr I will be able to make any significant change to that section myself. As I said though, I'm taking a look now.Crimsone 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

After much effort, I believe I have now resolved this issue. Please feel free to say otherwise If you still see a problem with it. Crimsone 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Severe Weather section is quite US-centric (I removed a reference to UK tornadoes because it was incorrect, and the correct statement isnt very relevant). Anyone have any ideas/international examples? -Runningonbrains 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The widespread severe floods of Europe a few years ago may be an example. In terms of national examples though, the Great Storm of 1987 may be fitting, and readily available on Wiki, being particularly potent as an actual Extratropical cyclone causing widespread damage at enormous cost. Crimsone 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Added sourced paragraph on the Great Storm of 1987 to section.Crimsone 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could some of the out-of-place sections be split into new articles?? --SunStar Net 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see any out of place sections in the article. Could you please explain? Crimsone 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. About the italics: I was the one who added them, following the style used on Eye (cyclone). Mostly, I've italicized all meteorological terms that do not have an article, and that are defined within a section; the same is done in the copyedited sections of Tropical cyclone, and I'll do the rest of that article as soon as I can get around to it. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I am satisfied with the improvements. Well done, everyone. -Runningonbrains 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Me, too. I'm too lazy to strike out my individual comments above though. :) The only thing I see is "£1.2 billion" could use the US dollar amount in parentheses. Anyway, congrats on a well written technical article that is remarkably clear to laypersons. Gzkn 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I hope you don't mind, but I've just saved you that particular effort and struck out the answered comments - just for clarities sake :) Crimsone 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks! Gzkn 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)