Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Numerical weather prediction/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poujeaux (talk | contribs) at 13:31, 21 February 2011 (→‎Numerical weather prediction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Numerical weather prediction

Numerical weather prediction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreatdr and myself have been working on this article for a while, and following the reviews given by Feline Hymnic and Hurricanehink, I believe the article meets all the featured article criteria. Hopefully you find the article informative, as well as well-written. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "ensemble spread to be small enough". I see 5 relationships b/w ensemble members and observations on Warner 267. Are we saying that underdispersion is by far the most common problem? I'm no saying you have to add all 5; you only need to explain what you are saying and why you are saying it... Locke'sGhost 09:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, from what I understand, underdispersion is the most severe problem for extended forecasts (~ τ ≈ 720 hours) and thus it gets more emphasis. I tried to clarify that in the article's prose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although these Monte Carlo simulations showed skill, Leith showed" ... Leith who? Locke'sGhost 12:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gongbing Peng, Lance M. Leslie, Yaping Shao "Environmental modelling and prediction" has a nice flowchart of the modelling process (figure 3.2, p. 81), with discussion starting around p. 78. Would it be useful to add something like this...? The whole article is pretty difficult to digest; needs some guidance...? Please don't fall into "a reviewer suggested it; must add it". Your thoughts solicited. Locke'sGhost 13:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If a flow diagram of the process helps the reader into understanding how NWP works, I don't see it shouldn't be added. That said, that diagram seems a bit too simple for my tastes, since it glosses over objective analysis and initialization, and it is not very clear about how model output is recirculated in the model. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, all sources look scholarly and reliable. Spotchecking was difficult when most of the sources have very wide page ranges, and I am totally unfamiliar with the material, so not much done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues all satisfactorily resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Heck of a job tackling a difficult (to me, at least) subject. It took me a lot of careful reading to understand, especially because of the jargon involved, but it gets the message across. This is the kind of article where the wikilinks have to do a lot of the heavy lifting in regards to addressing the jargon; there simply isn't a way to express the terms without using many more words. That said, I have to wonder if the topic wouldn't be better suited if the history section were placed further down the page. That way, you can introduce the concepts first and explain some of the jargon without throwing the reader directly into the mix. I found myself finding answers to questions I was asking in the history section as I read further into the article. It's something to consider.
  • I did a quick copy edit, so please take a look at what I've done to make sure I haven't screwed anything up too badly. It was only about halfway through that I realized this might have been written in British English, accounting for the collective noun/possessive agreement issues I found, so rather than stop halfway through and try to find everything I changed, I just kept going.
  • The article frequently uses the word "fields"; both "three-dimensional fields" and "wind fields" appear -- could you explain this?
    These are scalar fields and vector fields, sometimes in 3D space. (We could also link to flow velocity, but that article makes no sense whatsoever to most readers.) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about the 1950 prediction, could you drop in a reference that refers to the technique they did, one sentence before No. 5 appears? I can't tell if No. 5 is supposed to cover that as well, or just the sentence about how it reduced computer time.
  • Could you cite Richardson's quote, please?
  • What is a "thermotropic model"? You explain the barotropic model, but this one pops up in the second-to-last paragraph of the history section.
  • You say Hinkelmann was the first to produce a "reasonable" forecast. What made JNWPU's work unreasonable? Was it because it was based on a simpler idea?
  • What does "high-frequency noise" mean in this context?
    Essentially, minuscule variations in the initial condition. For the sake of example, if we approximate the state of a theoretical one-dimensional atmosphere as a sum of sines and cosines (essentially a Fourier series), we will find that with a few terms, we have a very smooth atmosphere. The more terms we add, we are able to distinguish more and more detail. However, as the picture in the Fourier series article shows, the solution becomes very spiky. When we take the derivative, those spikes correspond to huge changes in slope in a small distance, so the derivative becomes huge. Since the models depend on the value of the derivative, the whole thing explodes into a useless mess. This can be best explained with the graph at the start of [1].
    In reality, the situation is more complicated, since you could have initial conditions that don't match up and produce a velocity field that is not divergence-free or all other sorts of numerical issues. I tweaked the wording to try to clarify this. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've switched your wikilink from radiation to solar radiation -- my first thought was radiation from atomic tests, but I knew that couldn't be correct.
  • What is convective rain? Is there a wikilink for this?
  • How does a global forecast model (mentioned in the last sentence of the history section) differ?
  • "initialize and model soil and vegetation types" How do you initialize a type?
    • I'm not really sure how to address this: initialization is just telling the computer what kind of initial conditions and in which domain the problem is going to be solved. As such, initializing the soil and vegetation types is just punching in a variable in the computer model. I'm not sure how to clarify this without going completely off-topic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does modeling oceanic processes differ? The climate section leads me to believe there are additional problems involved, but I don't know.
    It's essentially a completely different problem. While air and water are both fluids, water is 1,000 times as dense as air, and such behaves completely differently. Oceanic circulation has a much higher Rossby number, so the Earth's rotation is an extremely-dominant factor in the circulation; additionally, problems such as the thermohaline circulation are completely inapplicable to atmospheric dynamics. Our article in ocean dynamics is the best place to explain this, and would be the primary article for this information.
    As for this article: flow of air over the ocean affects the ocean surface, and its modeling history is explained in this article. I added a couple of {{main}} links to the page, and again, I'm not sure what to add to satisfy this concern without veering too much off-topic. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under limited area modeling, I think you first need to define what a "limited area" is. Under the history section, I got the impression forecasters started out by modeling regions, which seem to me like a limited area. If there's a difference, it'd help if it was spelled out.
    • Yes. The first models were limited-area; then came global models. Modern limited-area models use global models as inputs, and then use different numerical schemes to resolve more physical processes over a limited area. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under ensemble modeling, "showed skill" isn't very clear to me ... does this mean he was on the right track but didn't quite have it?
  • What is "initial probability density"?
  • Is METAR report redundant?
  • Could you provide a citation for ship-supplied weather information, as you have with pilot reports?
  • Is there a wikilink for prognostic chart?
  • Is there a wikilink for spaghetti diagrams?
    • No, but the article defines it: "Ensemble spread is diagnosed through tools such as spaghetti diagrams, which show the dispersion of one quantity on prognostic charts for specific time steps in the future." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's about it from me; if you have any questions, comments or concerns about what I've written here, please drop a note on my talk page, and I'll get back to you as soon as you can. Good luck with the article! JKBrooks85 (talk) 13:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Looks good, but some niggles at the top that suggest the whole text needs TLC:

  • "atmospheric-dynamics-based forecast models"—please always consider reversing long gobbledy nominal groups of the type that strictly speaking need multiple hyphens. Why not this: "forecast models based on atmospheric dynamics".
  • "The development of limited area, or regional, models"—is that an equative "or", or an either-or? It goes bump-bump, too. Hyphen required. Why not "The development of limited-area (regional) models"?
  • "are run to help create forecasts for nations worldwide."—A bit clunky, the "nations" bit. It couldn't be just "worldwide forecasts", could it?
  • Pet peeve: scientists who write in telegram language. If there's an "of" after the nominal group, put a "the" before it (mostly works): "The use of model ensemble forecasts ...".
  • "Because the output of atmospheric dynamics-based forecast models is not perfect near ground level"—so it is perfect further up? Hard to believe.
  • I guess this long sentence is ok without splitting it, but make it easier for the readers: "which post-process the output of dynamical models with the most recent surface observations and climatology using statistical techniques" -> "which use statistical techniques to post-process the output of dynamical models with the most recent surface observations and climatology".
  • "forecast skill"—I haven't gone to the link-target, but skill sounds bizarre when applied to a model. "power to forecast", "forecasting accuracy" ... err, surely there's another way.
    • The problem is that forecast skill is a clearly-defined term in weather forecasting, and it stands for the ability of a model to predict the weather in comparison to another baseline (usually climatology). As such, I'm hesitant to change it since it could unexpectedly change the meaning of the prose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the end of the 19th century, weather prediction was entirely subjective and based on empirical rules." Is there tension between "subjective" and "empirical rules"? So often we see subjectivity pitted against the evidence-based. I trip up at this "contrast" here.
  • Start of "History": past tense / present tense dissonance. "proposed that the atmosphere was governed by the same principles of thermodynamics and hydrodynamics that were studied in the previous century" -> "proposed that the atmosphere is governed by the same principles of thermodynamics and hydrodynamics that had been studied in the previous century" (he was proposing a universal truth, yes?). Soon after, present tense is used for such proposed truths, which is fine.
  • "Richardson produced a 6-hour forecast for the state of the atmosphere over two points in central Europe by hand, taking at least six weeks to do so." Perhaps "Richardson produced by hand a 6-hour forecast for the state of the atmosphere over two points in central Europe, taking at least six weeks to do so." Or maybe even "Richardson took at least six weeks to produce by hand a 6-hour forecast for the state of the atmosphere over two points in central Europe."
The italics were, of course, an artefact of this review, to point out the change suggested. Tony (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, what is shoved right at the end of a long sentence seems to belong earlier, but I can't work out a better way: "The first successful numerical prediction was performed in 1950 by a team composed of the American meteorologists Jule Charney, Philip Thompson, Larry Gates, and Norwegian meteorologist Ragnar Fjörtoft and applied mathematician John von Neumann, using the ENIAC digital computer." Unsure ... "The first successful numerical prediction was performed using the ENIAC digital computer in 1950 by a team composed of the American meteorologists Jule Charney, Philip Thompson, Larry Gates, and Norwegian meteorologist Ragnar Fjörtoft and applied mathematician John von Neumann.
  • "could be performed on the relatively primitive computers available"—maybe "... computers of the day" stops the impression that better computers were around, but they couldn't access them. Unsure.

This is a fascinating story. I hope the nomination succeeds. Please try to find an independent copy-editor who's used to unwinding scientists' text. I love the concept that at a certain point of time, forecasts were quicker to perform that the forecast period! Tony (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC) PS, as usual, the text on the opening scematic is TINY. I'm enlarging it, but the task is challenging; readers shouldn't have to download the original image to get it (especially those on slow connections). Can we acknowledge NOAA in the caption? Whatever it is ... it's even hard to determine from the external link at the description page. And can't we have the full colour version? Tony (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the full-color version. :) I guess we could get the graphics lab to give us a better picture, but I have no idea how long it would take. Re: reviewers: Who would you suggest? Usually when Hurricanehink needs a copyeditor, he asks me, and in this case, he has already provided one for the article's GAN. So that takes out both of WP:WPTC's copyeditors, I guess. Feline Hymnic provided both a copyedit and a content review. I'm not really sure who to ask. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so unappreciated. I'll take a look, though... Juliancolton (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The full colour version is on the NOAA's website: see the external ref. Tony (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. They changed it from when I had last looked at that page (a while ago, I admit). Swapped it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a misleading comment in the lead about "imprecision of the partial differential equations". There is nothing imprecise about the PDES. This section is poorly worded. The important point about chaos is explained better in the main article, but rather inappropriately in the "Ensemble" section. Poujeaux (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hoping you were correct about this discussion lying within the partial differential article, but I don't see it. Can you point us to the passage? Or is there a different article which discusses the equation's imprecise solutions we should be linking to instead? Realized you were talking about this article's content, not the PDE article's content. The lead has been fixed. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that revision is a vast improvement. Although it is good, I still don't feel that the article quite merits FA status, but I don't feel sufficiently strongly to write 'oppose' in bold. The structure is a bit odd, for example ensembles coming up as a subsection of history and then as a separate section. The balance doesn't look right, with too much history in relation to the other topics. Also, starting with the history means that some subjects get explained twice, for example initial conditions and primitive equations. Poujeaux (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the ensemble information now lies within the ensemble section per your comments. I created a new subarticle named History of numerical weather prediction which covers all the historic content previously within this article, which allowed me to shorten the historical content in this article significantly. Efforts were made in this process to minimize duplication within the article, per your comments. See what you think. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with there being a split article for the history. It sounds like a content fork. There were no problems with the article length. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with Hurricanehink. I'm not sure the section needed to be split off, when rearranging the article would suffice. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do agree with the reviewer that there was a strong bias/POV towards history in this article, which is now covered by the subarticle. It's not a content fork because we replaced a long section with a short summary: the two are not in disagreement. We've done this numerous times before within the TC and met projects during GAN and FAC. During FAC, this was done during the tropical cyclone and surface weather analysis reviews, so it's not exactly precedent setting. We'll wait to see what Poujeaux thinks about the change. It does reduce redundancy. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We could have a subarticle on the history, but the historical summary at this point seems a bit short. Maybe bringing in a bit more of the previous content (e.g. the explanation of the different kinds of models introduced, linking to Atmospheric model#Types) would satisfy everyone's concerns. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think what you've brought back so far is perfect. I'd hesitate bringing more back before getting feedback from the reviewer who brought this up. They indicated that previously, the history section led to "some subjects getting explained twice." Thegreatdr (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback was positive, so I think we have the right proportion of history within the article now. As for inclusion of model types, we could do that, but then we'd need to explore what types of models are used within the ocean and air quality, to see if we included them all. I'm going to wikilink to Types of atmospheric models in the See Also section. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the balance and structure of the article look really good now. At the moment you have a glitch with duplication of the last para of the lead and the last para of the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a way of avoiding that, although one of the other editors might. Now that the history section is basically a lead of the History of numerical weather prediction article, we essentially have two summary sections within the article...one with dates for the history section and one without for the main numerical weather prediction article. Because the lead is a summary of the article below, there will be some duplication between the lead and article content. Maybe someone can think of a way of rewording it so it's not so similar. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I partially rewrote that part to make it less similar. What do you guys think? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is still a bit similar, but as RJH says below, you don't need the discussion of chaos in the history section. You could cut the "Even with..." and "This limitation..." sentences from the history section. Poujeaux (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Well it's a decent article, but I have a few issues.

  • Why does the "Climate modeling" section consist of history? Doesn't this belong in the History section? Ditto for the next two sections. When I look at the "main articles" for those sections, they mostly consist of content other than history. This doesn't seem like an appropriate application of WP:SS and they may need to be re-worked.
  • In the History section, there is an explanation for why the forecast accuracy decreases with time. I'm not clear why it belongs there, rather than in the Ensembles section that covers the same topic. It seems like a side bar topic in the history, so I'd suggest a relocation.
  • The images don't begin with "File:" and lack alt text. But the licensing appears okay.
  • Is "statical methods" jargon, or should it be "statistical methods"?
  • The "Limited area modeling" section uses a spaced en-dash, while the remainder uses unspaced em-dashes. Please stick to one.
  • There are many instances of ', and' rather than just 'and'. In a number of cases, the command and the 'and' are redundant. Please try to re-write some of these sentences, or split them up.

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact all three of the 'applications' sections are quite historical in style. IMHO the article could do with significantly more on the current state of the art, from someone who is an expert in the field (without making it too technical). I still don't really think the article is up to FA standard. Poujeaux (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason these feel historical is that they were split off from the History section per a request on the content review. Those sections definitely need revision since they were written with a different purpose in mind. I'll see what I can do, but I will have limited online access this weekend so it might take a bit of time to fix this. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget about Catch 22. One of the FA criteria is that the page is stable. This article has changed a lot in the last week or so as a result of this nomination! Poujeaux (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - 1 dab (Tellus); 0 dead external links. A few external redirects which may lead to link rot; see them with the tool in the upper right of this page. --PresN 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that dab is fixable, though. Tellus describes how there are two journals named Tellus: Tellus Series A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, and Tellus Series B: Chemical and Physical Meteorology. Both of them split from an older journal named Tellus. The reference that links to the dab page was published in the older, pre-split journal, so neither disambiguation target is correct. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Numerical_weather_prediction/archive1&oldid=415127561"