Talk:Monsoon trough

Monsoon trough has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 5, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: Tropical Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance).

Assessment

Very high start, almost B-class. It needs some copyediting, and more on how the monsoon trough contributes to tropical cyclone development. Everything else is solid. --Core des at talk! 03:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why oceanic streamline graphics?

There's not a monsoon in sight in those graphics. Why are they there? Tmangray 17:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The monsoon trough (ITCZ) is depicted by the convergence in the streamline pattern. This is now stated within the caption of the images. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the monsoon trough is not identical to the ITCZ. There are no monsoons in midocean areas. A monsoon is by definition a land-sea circulation. Tmangray (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

By definition, ANY line pressure in a monsoon regime is a monsoon trough. To speak of THE monsoon trough then is erroneous, unless one is speaking of the ITCZ which merges into the Asian summer monsoon. The article is confusing in this regard. The relationship of the ITCZ to the monsoon should be mentioned, as should non-ITCZ monsoon troughing. Tmangray 18:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned. The article has been reworded to clarify any possibly confusion. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although somewhat clarified, it remains somewhat confusing. A monsoon trough, for instance, does not necessrily involve the convergence of hemispheric winds. The monsoon trough over Mexico may extend northward from the ITCZ without the ITCZ itself becoming continuous with the trough itself, akin to a standing tropical wave. Another instance: the map inset shows the position of the ITCZ, not a monsoon trough, over the Pacific. This imples an identity which is unsupported. Tmangray (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Downgraded to start. The article is quite confusing and full of unexplained jargon, and doesn't clearly explain what the monsoon trough is. --Core desat 04:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt has been made the clarify the article. The only unexplained jargon I saw was vorticity, which is just jargon for atmospheric spin. Hopefully the current wording has improved the situation. Let me know if there is any more jargon that needs explanation. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons ill defined

eg in start of 'Movement' section what does 'late summer' mean if you don't even define which hemisphere you're talking about. There's cultural bias here. People in the affected part of the world commonly talk in terms of different seasons like 'the dry season' or 'the hot season'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.110.42 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was meant to be broadly stated. Late summer means August in the northern Hemisphere, and February in the southern Hemisphere. I thought I wasn't introducing a POV when writing the text in that manner. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time.

GA review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
~~A couple issues here. First, words like "Indeed..." don't sound encyclopediac. Also, there are entire sections without a single Wikilink.~~ Overall, though, the writing is good.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Seems factually accurite, although two sections don't have any sources, so I have no way of verifying the information.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I'd like some more information, as it is slightly short in its current state.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Overall, the article is generally good, but there are some issues that need to be taken care of. Thus, I've put the article on-hold. Good work so far, and good luck getting it to GA status. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional clarification, and a couple references to the missing paragraph. You mention some of the sections are short. What more would you like to see added that is missing? I was worried I had gotten wordy with the article, because there are not many sources regarding the dynamics and behavior of the monsoon trough. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's starting to look better. I'd like to see some more information regarding movement, and maybe some more about the depressions. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added more information, particularly to monsoon depression. The added information didn't bulk up the movement section very much. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to find much else...but I'll keep searching. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. I can safely pass GA. Good work! Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone

18:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Challenge

I have looked at the source references and others on my own, and I wish to challenge the accuracy of the article, in particular, the identification of a monsoon trough with the ITCZ. This explains a lot of the confusion in the article. Tmangray (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 14 equates them as the same feature. This reference also equates them as synonyms for the same line of convergence in the tropics. Intertropical front, Intertropical convergence zone, and monsoon trough all describe the same meteorological feature, it appears that the terminology preferred changes depending where you are in the world. Thegreatdr (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Tmangray. I read over the references, technically, ITCZ should be the name of the article, since Monsoon trough is a term that refers to only part of the ITCZ. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3, a glossary of terms issued by the World Meteorological Organization lists monsoon trough and ITCZ separately and makes no mention of identity. I believe confusion arises because the ITCZ is drawn into the Asian summer monsoon regime. In actual usage, ANY trough line within the monsoon regime is a "monsoon trough", or at best, the principal trough line, which may or may not coincide with the ITCZ. When the ITCZ is drawn into a monsoon regime (the broad thermally-driven low pressure area), it often becomes more diffuse and ill-defined. Tmangray (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the redirect and restored ITCZ and am currently updating the opening paragraph. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the entire article as currently written is misleading. Moreover, it is largely superceded by the article on the ITCZ. Tmangray (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not that well written, though both articles should be kept. This article needs more info on "monsoon depressions", as referenced in the Australia part (#11), and more info on how it differs from ITCZ, especially in the S. Pacific and the W. coast of Africa. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The monsoon trough is the ITCZ at the west coast of Africa, that's not even in doubt. If there were two features near western Africa, surely someone would have noticed a persistent double thunderstorm band there. The Southern Pacific Convergence Zone I'm not sure about (though I think it is considered a discontinuous part of the ITCZ), though the one in Brazil is not a portion of the ITCZ, as the ITCZ almost never sinks south of the equator in the eastern Pacific or Atlantic oceans per literature, even though it theoretically should. I can dig up another dozen references mentioning the ITCZ and monsoon trough are interchangable terms, but I don't feel this will convince you that they are one and the same because you believe there is some subtle distinction. I guess we'd need to investigate the Mei Yu front, SPCZ, and one in Brazil, to see if they are portions of the ITCZ or not. Are those monsoon troughs? Is the ITCZ a specialized version of the monsoon trough, with monsoon trough a more generic term? I have yet to find literature to support that either. Maybe this mess will force people to improve the ITCZ article, which was virtually abandoned this year, until the plane crash. It definitely means this article can't go up for FA until this issue is resolved. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, the MT is off the W. coast of Africa, I never said it wasn't (read comment above). What I was trying to say was that this fact needs to be explained better in this article, for the layman, like myself, and it definitely needs to be expanded before qualifying for FA status. I think adding to it what you are describing about the different names and reasons why the terminology differs around the globe would be a great enhancement to this article. The following diagram from the Atomoshere, weather and climate book shows the different CZs: figure 4.16, pg 158. Definitely, Monsoon trough, ITCZ, SPCZ need to be cross-referenced to each other properly, and there's room for adding a few more articles about the other fronts mentioned in the diagram, like ZAB, MF, etc. A point to consider: if each term is covered in the textbook separately, why wouldn't they be covered in separate encyclopedic articles? --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know of no scientific works which use the terms ITCZ and monsoon trough interchangeably. They are not identical except in instances where they are intertwined. The usage is absolutely wrong for those parts of the ITCZ which are not part of any monsoon circulation,regardless of convective activity. By definition, a monsoon is a land-sea dynamic system, thus there is no monsoon troughing of any kind involved with mid-oceanic convective clusters, for instance. The article must be amended accordingly. Tmangray (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Monsoon trough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Monsoon trough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]