622:—It's not hard to find problems in the prose, still. Take this one: "Organized areas of thunderstorm activity not only reinforce pre-existing frontal zones, but they can outrun cold fronts in a pattern where the upper level jet splits into two streams, with the resultant mesoscale convective system (MCS) forming at the point of the upper level split in the wind pattern running southeast into the warm sector parallel to low-level thickness lines." Hyphen problems (three, I think); far too long; redundant words.
429:"The first weather maps in the 19th century were drawn in order to devise a theory on storm systems." A number of problems. So there were weather maps in the 18th century, but they weren't drawn for this purpose? (Needs proper use of commas to convey the intended meaning.) "In order to" is my pet hate. Why use three words when just "to" will do? Are you sure the maps were drawn for the purpose of devising a theory? Reference 2
385:. Some retrieval dates are wikilinked; others not. Solo years should not be wikilinked. Short, stubby sections have now been replaced by some massive paragraphs; for example, the middle of the Fronts section. Does it make sense that no terms used in "Plotted symbols on weather maps" or "Pressure centers" are wiki-linked? There are also a lot of terms in "Fronts" that aren't linked.
146:; you mention the use of SWA in aviation in the lede, but the article never goes on to discuss this subject; perhaps a short section is in order. Also, in the first section, you cite the time standardisation info as (W.S.R.), but you never state what this refers to. This cite should be converted to a ref format.
367:
Fixed the problems with the wikilinks, special character, and the one spot where I saw multiple seealsos in the same section. I believe I fixed the problem with the one temperature range listed. More references have been added to the history section, as requested. I combined a couple of the stubby
465:
Hi Tony. A bad reference was mistakenly left in during the reorganization of the lead yesterday. That problem was easily fixed. If you know of weather maps drawn in the 18th century (1701-1800), please let me know and provide an appropriate citation. The small word problems you noted have been
224:
Other than it being also in the title of the section, there was no good reason. That part of the structure preexisted my upgrade of the article some months back. Since only fronts was bolded in such a manner, I have removed both bolded words/phrases.
63:
Since there have been positive comments on the talk page since it earned GA, and no reported problems so far, I have nominated this article for FA, which would be the first FA for one of the core meteorology project articles. It appears stable.
368:
sections into other related sections. Worked on the lead some as well. Which links/articles that are not linked to you think should be created? Is there anything left that is problematic with the lead? I need more than inadequate to go on.
190:, but it's very tricky to make a copy of the image, given that the symbols used by the NOAA really are that pixellated, and the images themselves aren't really a reason to oppose an FA so long as they add to it, which this one does.
402:
The various fronts have now been wikilinked. All dates within refs are now wikilinked. The massive paragraphs and lead section have been restructured per specific comments in the peer review page. The subheading is also fixed.
478:
I agree with Tony, this article could use a good copy-edit by somebody not familiar with the article. I won't withdraw my support because I think it can be done, but it still needs editing work before it can be FA.
585:
423:. 1a, 1c and 2a. The lead, inadequate in scope and length, provides ample evidence that the whole text needs thorough copy-editing, preferably by someone with fresh eyes.
339:
inconsistent wikilinking (first occurrences should be linked), numerous terms introduced for which red links should be created or articles should already exist,
381:— and why are those terms not defined until a later section? Reference formatting is not consistent at all; I can't discern which style is used. Please see
676:
40:
157:
Fixed the reference to standard time. Thanks for catching that problem with aviation being missed in the body of the article...will add that shortly.
646:
All of my suggested improvements have been made during peer review. I see no reason not to support this article as a
Featured Article anymore.--
30:
17:
278:. I did not give this article as well of a look over as I should have, if you can get this copy-edited I will remove the conditional.
662:
635:
626:
614:
604:
565:
531:
511:
494:
470:
459:
407:
397:
372:
362:
313:
293:
258:
249:
229:
219:
196:
170:
161:
152:
128:
119:
110:
101:
92:
83:
68:
254:
It should be more thoroughly referenced now. Let me know if you see any spots where additional references would be helpful.
657:
599:
97:
For example - the first three citations link to a non-functioning website and the publisher of this site isn't mentioned.
550:
I am starting to give the text a look over tonight, but I would suggest enlisting the help of the League of
Copyeditors.
516:
I did not give the text as well as a look over as I had thought in addition to the comments I had about citations.
183:
57:
610:
This article has come a long way since peer review started. Check out the changes and see what you think.
507:
393:
358:
204:
Its a good article, but I have just one question before I support, why is Dry Line bolded in the article?
124:
Found a random cite book ref and changed it to fit the ref format used in the remainder of the article.
558:
524:
487:
307:
286:
242:
234:
I would like to see a few more citations, some of the sections have none at all like the front section.
212:
191:
147:
382:
344:
issues on temperature ranges, multiple See also templates at head of section which should be combined.
499:
But you lodged a
Support of the article above ?? 1a (compelling prose) is a requirement for FAs.
651:
593:
500:
386:
351:
553:
519:
482:
341:
302:
281:
237:
207:
632:
611:
467:
404:
369:
255:
226:
167:
158:
125:
107:
89:
65:
631:
Parsed the run-on sentence and slightly reworded to make it sound more encyclopedaic.
324:
647:
589:
378:
332:
347:
116:
98:
80:
623:
456:
435:"such as atmospheric pressure, temperature, cloud cover, and others"—Why
675:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
329:
numerous short stubby sections, headings use special character (/)
88:
Where specifically do you think additional sourcing is needed?
300:
The article has come a long way since being placed up for FAC.
187:
377:
Why is the heading
Synoptic Scale Features all in caps (see
439:subset terms: one at the start and one at the end?
669:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
584:Comments made at this articles recently started
106:Replaced the dead links with a primary source.
679:. No further edits should be made to this page.
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
442:"The data are measurements"—No, they're the
677:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
337:large chunks of uncited text in history,
166:A section has been added for aviation.
449:"the map's domain"—no, just "the area".
323:; not at all ready for FAC. Inadquate
588:. Leave any responses there please.--
426:"Specific", not "specified", I think.
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
455:That's the first half of the para.
24:
350:to prepare the article for FAC.
346:I suggest an extended stint at
1:
31:featured article nomination
696:
294:20:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
259:01:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
250:01:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
230:22:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
220:17:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
197:11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
171:05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
162:05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
153:21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
129:21:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
120:09:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
111:17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
102:17:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
93:16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
84:16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
69:15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
431:doesn't" say that at all.
672:Please do not modify it.
663:17:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
636:01:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
627:03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
615:18:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
408:14:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
314:00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
58:Surface weather analysis
36:Please do not modify it.
605:05:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
566:02:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
532:02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
512:02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
495:15:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
471:14:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
460:09:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
398:02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
373:16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
363:01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
79:- inadequate sourcing.
52:17:31, 25 May 2007.
660:
654:
602:
596:
687:
674:
658:
652:
600:
594:
561:
556:
527:
522:
504:
490:
485:
446:of measurements.
390:
355:
310:
305:
289:
284:
245:
240:
215:
210:
194:
150:
48:The article was
38:
695:
694:
690:
689:
688:
686:
685:
684:
683:
670:
620:Further comment
559:
554:
525:
520:
502:
488:
483:
388:
353:
308:
303:
287:
282:
243:
238:
213:
208:
192:
148:
61:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
693:
691:
682:
681:
641:
640:
639:
638:
617:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
473:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
440:
433:
427:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
317:
316:
297:
296:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
199:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
141:
140:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
131:
60:
55:
54:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
692:
680:
678:
673:
667:
666:
665:
664:
661:
655:
649:
645:
637:
634:
630:
629:
628:
625:
621:
618:
616:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
603:
597:
591:
587:
583:
582:
567:
564:
563:
562:
557:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
533:
530:
529:
528:
523:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
498:
497:
496:
493:
492:
491:
486:
477:
474:
472:
469:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
448:
445:
441:
438:
434:
432:
428:
425:
424:
422:
419:
418:
409:
406:
401:
400:
399:
395:
391:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
371:
366:
365:
364:
360:
356:
349:
345:
343:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
319:
318:
315:
312:
311:
306:
299:
298:
295:
292:
291:
290:
285:
277:
274:
272:
268:
260:
257:
253:
252:
251:
248:
247:
246:
241:
233:
232:
231:
228:
223:
222:
221:
218:
217:
216:
211:
203:
200:
198:
195:
189:
186:should be an
185:
181:
178:
172:
169:
165:
164:
163:
160:
156:
155:
154:
151:
145:
142:
130:
127:
123:
122:
121:
118:
114:
113:
112:
109:
105:
104:
103:
100:
96:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
72:
71:
70:
67:
59:
56:
53:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
671:
668:
643:
642:
619:
580:
579:
578:
552:
551:
518:
517:
481:
480:
475:
454:
443:
436:
430:
420:
340:
336:
328:
320:
301:
280:
279:
275:
270:
269:
236:
235:
206:
205:
201:
179:
143:
75:
74:
62:
49:
47:
35:
28:
586:peer review
271:Conditional
633:Thegreatdr
612:Thegreatdr
468:Thegreatdr
405:Thegreatdr
383:WP:CITE/ES
370:Thegreatdr
276:looks fine
256:Thegreatdr
227:Thegreatdr
184:this image
182:; ideally
168:Thegreatdr
159:Thegreatdr
126:Thegreatdr
108:Thegreatdr
90:Thegreatdr
66:Thegreatdr
342:WP:MOSNUM
659:contribs
648:Jayron32
601:contribs
590:Jayron32
466:fixed.
115:Thanks,
50:promoted
644:Support
503:Georgia
476:Comment
389:Georgia
354:Georgia
325:WP:LEAD
273:Support
202:Comment
180:Support
144:Comment
581:Oppose
444:result
421:Oppose
379:WP:MSH
333:WP:MSH
321:Oppose
309:Griz98
117:Addhoc
99:Addhoc
81:Addhoc
76:Oppose
555:Darth
521:Darth
501:Sandy
484:Darth
387:Sandy
352:Sandy
348:WP:PR
331:(see
304:Darth
283:Darth
239:Darth
209:Darth
193:Laïka
149:Laïka
16:<
653:talk
624:Tony
595:talk
560:griz
526:griz
508:Talk
489:griz
457:Tony
394:Talk
359:Talk
288:griz
244:griz
214:griz
437:two
335:),
188:SVG
510:)
396:)
361:)
327:,
33:.
656:|
650:|
598:|
592:|
506:(
392:(
357:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.