Talk:Cumulus cloud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Cumulus cloud 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.
February 15, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated GA-class, High-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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


That NOAA picture is imsive, but I don't think it shows the typical cumulus formation so I uploaded one of my own. No offense meant. Koyaanis Qatsi, Friday, July 19, 2002

Always makes me laugh at this site when templates take more room than the article. 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Bad image that I made, if someone has a better one please delete this.Dreg743 08:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Abbreviations in the article. the same.


Has anyone a reference for the assertion that cumulus clouds 'produce wind' I found this fascinating, but I think we ought to find a credible link for it Kellyna 01:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No reference, but that sounds natural as in the shadow of a cloud it is usually cooler during the daylight and this produces a pressure difference. 08:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Really unclear[edit]

I have to admit that this article needs a lot of fixing-up. Need to define a lot of concepts (they produce wind??), better sentence formatting, etc. --Gabycs 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

hey who wrote this its great —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? You might need a lesson in WP:OWN :D. Anyways, even though I only have a basic understanding of the subject, I'm working on the refs. IceUnshattered (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't say how the clouds are formed as well. I searched it up and this didn't even tell me how they are formed. How am I supposed to pass this project if it doesn't tell me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 

Removal of copy-edit tag[edit]

This page seems to no longer need copy-editing. Any comments? If nobody disagrees, I'll remove the copy-edit tag in a week.

GFett (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. There's still a lot to be improved, but I think there's no problem with rm'ing the tag. IceUnshattered [ t ] 16:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I substituted the infobox to allow for multiple classifications (low-level or vertical, depending on size). See also talk:cloud. (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what you did, but thanks for taking care of that anyways :) IceUnshattered [ t ] 18:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

photo credit[edit]

I noticed that the amount of photo in cumulus mediocris was excessive in proportion to the text of that article, so I moved one photo to this article, where it would fit better, instead. The photo caption was written by User:Photofm and it appears that he is also the photographer as well. (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC) started the gallery, right? Are you sure it's totally necessary? I like the congestus pic, but I'm not sure the mediocris is totally needed to illustrate the subject. IceUnshattered [ t ] 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Not strictly necessary, no, but I think that the pictures make the article look nice, and besides, better here than there. And now that I have decided to collapse the gallery into the "forecast" section, the left side shows clouds that are associated with fair weather, and the right side shows clouds that may develop into showers or thunderstorms. (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


"Cumulus clouds typically form when warm air rises and reaches a level of comparatively cool air,"

I won't get into an edit war, but as written, this implies that it needs a layer 'of comparatively cool air' to form. What actually happens is that a parcel of air, rising through convection WILL form a cumulus cloud, unless the ascent is stopped by reaching equlibruim with the surrounding air. i.e. where the rise of the air is prevented by meeting a layer of air that is warmer than the DALR. (inversion or stable layer) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgb2 (talkcontribs) 05:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of citation tag[edit]

I think I have cited all the relevant parts. Unless there is disagreement, I will remove the tag in 7 days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgb2 (talkcontribs) 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been more than a week by my count. I'll rm it. Also, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thanks, IceUnshattered [ t ] 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Vague wording[edit]

Over the sea, cumulus clouds may be found in regularly spaced lines or patterns. The best examples of these lines are found in the trade winds, where they may extend for many miles.

The many miles wording is quite vague. Although there is nothing specific in the MOS about this, the usage of a unit of measure without a specific quantity appears to be incorrect usage. It can be improved by rewording it in one of the following ways:

  • If some representative distances can be found in primary references, use and cite those. (Recommended per MOS.)
  • Substitute wording that does not use units of measurement, such as "great distances".
-- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 23:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

proposals to merge[edit]

  • I also suggest merging the three articles on towering cumulus clouds; I shall start a discussion here. (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Formation section[edit]

RE kindly asked me to look, admittedly at the climate section, but I think the formation section needs work too. I think that stuff like meaning that the enthalpy flow through the system boundary is very low is too technical - well, it is for me - and needs to be pushed down. OTOH, the second-phase wet-adiabatic bit fails to emphasise the positive feedback element of formation. I think the Langmuir stuff needs rework too. However this may reflect my perspective on these, which is to try to fit them into the global climate system William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll try to rewrite this in a slightly less technical manner, possibly by removing the explanation of "adiabatic", since anybody who wants to understand that could follow the wikilink. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Continuing at my snail's pace, I think:

Rain forms in a cumulus cloud via a process involving two non-discrete stages. The first stage occurs after the droplets coalesce onto the various nuclei. Langmuir writes that surface tension in the water droplets provides a slightly higher pressure on the droplet, raising the vapor pressure by a small amount. The increased pressure results in those droplets evaporating and the resulting water vapor condensing on the larger droplets. Due to the extremely small size of the evaporating water droplets, this process becomes largely meaningless after the larger droplets have grown to around 20 to 30 micrometers, and the second stage takes over.[6] In the accretion phase, the raindrop begins to fall, and other droplets collide and combine with it to increase the size of the raindrop. Langmuir was able to develop a formula[note 1] which predicted that the droplet radius would grow unboundedly within a discrete time period.[7]

should be moved to its own article. This stuff is common to all clouds, I think, not just cumulus. Perhaps Cloud physics? (I'd have called it cloud microphysics) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it isn't common to cirrus or cirrostratus clouds, and possibly others. I'd support keeping it in the article anyway as a short summary of how cumulus clouds are formed, because otherwise readers would constantly be flipping between pages to learn about the various aspects of cumulus clouds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Langmuir part in the initial section is way too technical for an intro section. Jgb2 (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, two to three paragraphs is appropriate, per WP:LEAD.
    Done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The University of Richmond external link is dead.
    Removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not certain why it had that title, but I've moved it to Cumulus congestus cloud to go along with all the other cumulus cloud species which have articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Description, skew is a dab link.
    I've disambiguated it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Subforms - Is there any information on the relative frequency with which these various forms are seen? Compared to each other or to other cloud formations?
    I've never seen any research or discussion on the relative frequencies of the subforms of any cloud species. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Relation to other clouds - I'm a little confused as to why its necessary to summarize all of these other cloud types (everything after the introductory paragraph of this section). Isn't it enough to mention them, and only expand into details if the information is specifically relevant to the topic of the article, in this case cumulus clouds? When writing, say, a plant article, we do not give every other species within the genus its own section - we simply mention other important ones and only expand on the topic if there is an important comparison to be made that gives the reader additional information specifically on the plant species the article is supposed to be discussing.
    • Fair enough. I still personally think it's unnecessary, but if it's what was asked for at FAC, then it's best to keep the articles consistent. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The bibliography appears to be alphabetical except for the first entry. Is there a reason for this discrepancy?
    • I used to not know the author of the book (it isn't on the cover of my copy), so I had originally alphabetized it by its title. I've fixed that now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • You should probably also change ref #38 (Audubon 2000, p. 448), so that it points to the author name? Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    Agreed and done. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Not required for GA status, but it would be nice if the name format was standardized in the bibliography (some entries are currently last, first, while others are first last).
    I think this is fixed now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ref #2, 11 needs a publisher
    • I've added metadata for #2. #11 seems to have died, so I'm replacing it.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • This looks like it's still in the article? Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    I've found a replacement now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Ref #5 - what is AAAS? Please spell out acronyms.
    I've fixed the reference into the bibliographic format used for all the other references. AAAS has been removed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • What makes Ref #10 (Cloud streets) a reliable source?
    • It is written by pilots (albeit likely amateurs), so, for the purpose of citing information related to wind patterns and aviation, it appears to be reliable. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not convinced. The "about us" page talks about "aviation enthusiasts" which could be a 12 year old kid sitting in his bedroom. I don't see anything about author attribution, fact checking, expert authors, etc... Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    Ah, I see now. I've replaced it with citations to reliable sources, mainly Weston. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
    • What makes Ref #19, 43 (Cloud atlas) a reliable source?
    • It isn't—it's a user-generated website, and it is factually inaccurate. I replaced the references to it with reliable sources. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I still see one reference to this. Now Ref #22. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    I've nailed that one too now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • See comments on final section included in prose review, above.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    • Overall a nice article, but a few issues related to prose, referencing and focus. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! Due to real life time constraints (college), I'll probably only have time to clean these issues up over the weekend. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The work so far looks good. I still have a few minor concerns related to sources - see my replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, everything looks good to me, so I'm passing the article to GA status. Very nice work - thanks for sticking with it! Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)