Lightning was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Severe weather, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of severe weather on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Great Kri! That would be nice, but it is such a complex topic I'm not sure it is worth more than just a reference given the fact this page has in the past become such a tangled mess. Cleaning it up was no easy feat. You would be interested to know, there is a wikieditor here who makes art work based on the understanding written about in this paper. Can't recall his username, but his work is pretty amazing! Borealdreams (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
This talks about potential through the air, but uses non-descript details and is far from "modeling" specific. Upon finishing reading it, understanding how lightning works, I am left with the idea that "discharge" occurs in this massive, 3-dimensional rectangle that comes down from the sky using every water molecule/impurity in the air as the conductive path. We know this is not the case, and in fact the conductor, the flash channel, is an ionized "tube" of sorts only a couple of centimeters in diameter if that. Also, the potential in the air is realitively accurate, however it fails to mention the increases due to a storm cloud passing are significant, and the origin of lightning from a clear sky is non-existant (traveling miles from a storm cloud, the "bolt from a blue", comes from a cloud, not clear sky). PS, it's an unsourced blog at that. Borealdreams (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The section on dark lightning seems dubious. It comprises individual researchers' research project which is not backed up by independent findings or peer-reviewed articles. This seems unsuitable for an encyclopaedic article. Additionally the links are to other articles which are also questionable. I would recommend removing (or at least heavily editing) this section.
It looks as if the term "dark lightning" is now being used as an informal synonym for conventional TGFs (terrestrial gamma ray flashes). On a tangentially related point, I found this sentence still in the text: "A number of observations by space-based telescopes have revealed even higher energy gamma ray emissions, the so-called terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs). These observations pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the recent discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning."
It's true that TGFs are still a bit of a mystery, but the antimatter is not. Everybody knows that gamma rays produce electrons and positrons through pair production. The fact that the positrons hadn't previously been detected does not equate with them being surprising or unexpected. The source cited here (Science News) makes it sound like a surprise, but NASA website here (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/fermi-thunderstorms.html) makes it clear that it's no surprise. "...pose a challenge to current theories..." is seriously misleading. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I think this article could benefit from the return of the "Dark Lightning" section with three conditions: 1) Change the name. "Dark lightning" has already been used for more than a century to describe any high-energy event in a thunderstorm that is not lightning or not as bright as ordinary lightning. There are other more technical terms that could be used. 2) Someone needs to explain it in plain English. When the terms "antimatter" and "runaway breakdown" are used with no explanation, it sounds like science-fiction or pseudo-science. 3) Put it in the context of closely-related theories that are being taken seriously. Dwyer's theory is taken seriously by the scientific community, but as a variant of a broader set of theories, all of which are being watched with interest. And finally, it looks like Dwyer has become something of a "celebrity scholar" with a cult following, at least among his grad students and their friends. As a result we need to be extra vigilant to weed out the hype. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)