Talk:Blood rain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Blood rain was a Natural sciences 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 12, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Paranormal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Inadequacy of the lead[edit]

If the lead does not summarize the article adequately (which in this case should be 2-3 paragraphs), then the GAN could be quick failed. This problem needs to be rectified quickly, and once done, would likely earn the article at least C class. For examples, check out the rain and thunderstorm articles, which were deemed GA quality. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, but a short lead is easily fixed and isn't one of the GA quick fail criteria. I'll get onto it later. Still though it's a short article, and the lead doesn't need to be much longer. Nev1 (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The reference section is quite long in this article. You're right, it likely doesn't need to be expanded much more. An image in the lead would be helpful as well. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
One option would be to move the current image to the lead, and add another from the red rain in Kerala article – probably of the cells to the explanation section, although this maybe misleading. The only images I've come across are in the Kerala article. Nev1 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem with repurposing images from other articles. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood rain/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Review begun. Will get back to you tomorrow. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Busy day at work, but I didn't forget you. Need 24 more hours. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Good article on hold until review comments (below) are addressed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To start with, the first sentence of the lede "Blood rain is a phenomenon where blood appears to fall from the sky in the form of rain." I think needs to be reworked a bit. Because we all know it the natural phenomena isn't blood, yet as a literary device it may be, so something like "Blood rain is a phenomenon where a substance which is perceived to be blood falls from the sky in the form of rain. In literature, blood rain may refer to actual blood raining from the sky."

Regarding the organization of information in the article, this article is a mixture of scientific explanation, history, and literary imaginings, and those things need to be well separated. I would recommend the article's sections be organized like this:

  • Occurrences
    • Literary Accounts
    • Historical Accounts
  • Characteristics
  • Explanations
    • Historical Explanations (the information about prior explanations, like the "evaporated blood" theory)
    • Possible Scientific Explanations

Your references need to be standardized as well, not in two different styles of referencing (referring to McCafferty). That's a start. Hope this helps. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not having responded earlier, I must have missed this on my watchlist. The citations have been standardised. The lead needed expanding, so I've added to it. I tried to keep the first sentence from being wordy, but hopefully the first paragraph shows that in literature the rain could actually be blood, and that in the medieval period and earlier people thought it was.

Regarding the organisation of the article, I'm not convinced that restructuring is necessary. There is some overlap between the two main sections, but that is because the history of the phenomenon and its explanation are linked. The explanation details the developing understanding of blood rain, from literal interpretations that it was blood – perhaps caused by gods – through to the modern interpretation that there are several causes, ie: dust and microscopic organisms. The history and use in literature section explains how the phenomenon has been recorded, how it has occurred, and how this has changed over time. To fully explain this, it has been necessary to introduce some of the explanations which are better explained later. Otherwise the change from medieval mysticism to a modern scientific approach is unexplained. Separating the literary from the historic instances is nigh on impossible, hence they are dealt together. For instance, many of the early rains may have been invented by authors to give a sense of impending doom, foreshadowing events, however who is to say that blood coloured rain didn't actually fall and that with hindsight chroniclers interpreted it as a sign? It seems likely that both historic and literary rains went hand in hand early on, and it is only with a modern understanding of the phenomenon that it falls out of use as an omen in literature. For the most part, the sources discussing blood rain have hesitated to draw black and white distinctions between the two.

As for a characteristics section, I like the idea, but don't think there's enough information to justify one. Basically, it boils down to three main characteristics: it's red, usually covers a small area, although the time is lasts is variable. This is covered in the explanation section, but I've included more details in the lead to make it more prominent. Nev1 (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply. If you prefer a different structure (or the current structure), that's okay, but the article is confusing to me because I have a hard time separating the scientific accounts from the literary/figurative accounts, because they are mixed together. You mention that some of the literary accounts may be based on actual phenomena, and that's okay, but it is equally possible that the writers meant that literal blood fell from the sky, which is why I think they need to be clearly separated into their own sections (fine to say that the literary accounts may be based on actual phenomena). Is there some way you can clearly delineate the two, and break that huge paragraph up a little? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 07:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Doubtful, as to these people the rain wasn't simply red, it was blood, whether they made up the event or it was historical. Nev1 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Review Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

No improvements since April 12. Nom states unable to make improvements.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    The article's current structure is confusing. See GA review comments for details.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Readers need to be able to easily delineate between actual occurrences from fantastic mentions in literature.

More info[edit] this reference on page 380. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What does "ca" mean?[edit]

In the second sentence: "Cases have been recorded since Homer's Iliad, composed ca eighth century BC, and are widespread." Does anybody know what this ca is for, or is it vandalism?

Thanks,WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's an abbreviation for circa. Parrot of Doom 21:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks!WIERDGREENMAN, Thane of Cawdor THE CAKE IS A LIE (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sarton, 1947: something is wrong here![edit]

Note 15 is said to be page 98, but the article is only between pp 85 and 95. Calle Widmann (talk) 06:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Calle Widmann, somehow when I added the Sarton reference I got some of the details mixed up with Stothers' 1979 article, so they had each other's page ranges and links to Jstor. I've made the correction and have swapped around the details. Thanks for mentioning the error. Nev1 (talk) 12:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

new investigation of the phenomenon carried out currently by Chandra Wickramasinghe[edit]

current affiliation: Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology (BCAB) 9.1.2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)