Talk:Station model

Article creation

Created the article to help support both the surface weather analysis and weather map articles. Thegreatdr 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking for cloud symbol image for article

I am having a hard time finding an image that shows all the cloud symbols from a .gov source. If anyone finds one, upload it and include it into the article. After that is done, I think we can submit the article for GA. Thegreatdr 13:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Submitted article for GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

GA attempts

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing is the issue that needs attention.
--The lead needs cleanup. It is long and confusing.
--There are also writing errors, such as, "In the United States, rainfall can be plotted in the corner of the station model are in English units, such as inches."
--The article needs to be broken into more paragraphs. The sections are long, difficult to read blocks.
--The article would also be much more readable if some of the items used bullet points.

2. Factually accurate?: The section on surface pressure seems like it should have a link to Atmospheric_pressure instead of Atmospheric tides

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: You have done a very good job of adding images.

This is a difficult topic to write. You're trying to describe a graphic in words. You have a great start and have obviously worked hard on this. If you can clean up the writing, you should renominate this.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Wshallwshall (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've cleaned up the writing. If there are any other instances of bad writing, point them out, and they'll be fixed. As for bullet points being added, most reviewers request them to be removed from articles, rather than added to them, so I don't plan on making that change. Atmospheric tides is the best link, since there is a pressure seesaw during the day with two low points (4 am and 4 pm) and two high points (10 am and 10 pm). I added in the atmosphere pressure link as well, since I can see your point. I'll resubmit it for GAC now (the changes you suggested took minutes). Shortening the sections any farther will likely cause the article to fail (they'll be too stubby), so that change won't be made. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Second GA attempt

After the copy edit, resubmitted the article for GAC/GAN. In the reassessment section, a reviewer mentioned it should have been failed, but was unspecific. Please, point out individual instances within the article that need to be improved, or there is little that can be done to improve the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Congratulations on your dedication to this article and your contributions to Wikipedia. I'm a meteorologist, so I understand how difficult it can be to make topics clear, but still remain technically accurate.

I think you still have some work to do, but you seem to be willing to respond quickly. Since you are committed to your articles, I hope you will revisit the suggestions I made in my first review.

You might consider looking at Wikipedia:Layout. Some especially relevant points from that guideline:

• Paragraphs become hard to read once they exceed a certain length
• Sometimes a bulleted list can break up what would otherwise be an overly large, grey mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort on the part of readers.

Also, consider the following from Wikipedia:Writing better articles

• Paragraphs should be short enough for readability, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. Beginning with a "bridge" statement such as "Other examples abound" may be helpful.

Finally, you might consider looking at Wikipedia:Embedded_list#Lists_within_articles.

Best of luck with your second attempt. Wshallwshall (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added a couple embedded lists, per your suggestions. There might be room for one more, which I'm still mulling over. Thank you for your comments so far. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment and second GA attempt

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The reassessment discussion has now been closed as the article was renominated at GAN. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Geometry guy 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thegreatdr has asked me to provide specific suggestions for improving the article to meet the GA criteria, which I am happy to do.

In one word, the article as it stands is not broad (criterion 3). It explains in enormous detail the notation and conventions used for each component of the station model, and is a great "how to" guide, but as an encyclopedia article, it lacks depth. In particular, it lacks any history. When were station model's first introduced? Who introduced them? How have they changed since their beginnings? Who were the key figures involved? What is the origin of the name? What is their role in the modern age of computers? Where in the world are they used? Who is responsible for the standard? Are their other systems in use?

Will continue working on this. Provided some references from the Daily Weather Map series to document the change to the station model on August 1, 1941. Looked for links online concerning the history of the station model, and have come up blank so far. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A second problem is that the article is not well structured (criterion 1). This is actually a consequence of the first problem: because the article only describes the components of the station model, each component is described in a separate section, and each section consists of only one paragraph. This does not make a compelling read. If the first problem were fixed, this would be easy to adjust.

A third problem is that the article is not as well sourced (as far as I can tell) as it could be (criterion 2). Although most of the websites used are clearly reliable, they are mostly primary sources, and there are no print sources. There are also sentences needing references that do not have them. One example is the last sentence of the lead. The section of "Pressure tendancy" is full of them.

This problem is being fixed now. There are several new sources added as of late. Will now look for sources for pressure tendency. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

 Done Thegreatdr (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally, the lead is weak (criterion 1). The first sentence does not actually define the subject. After reading on, I got some idea what it is, but was still unsure whether "a station model" was a weather report at a particular location in a particular notation, or whether "the station model" was the system for denoting such reports: following some links, I suspect the latter, and that a particular weather report is called a "station weather plot" or something like that. The first sentence should be something like: "The station model is a system for summarizing the weather at a particular location on a weather map". That may not be right, but whatever the correct definition is, I hope you see the idea: define it explicitly, not implicitly.  Done

The rest of the lead is mainly weak because of the first problem (broadness). You could try writing a broad lead first, then expanding on it in the article, or you could try fixing the rest of the article first, then rewrite the lead. The second is more important, I think, but you could do both (i.e., sketch out a broad lead, then fix the rest of the article, then rewrite the lead).

There are a few other minor issues.

• This is an article where the images are really helpful in conveying the idea, and it is great that you have so many. They could be made a bit larger, though: some are tiny! Also, I think it would be nice to have another example of station model weather report so that readers can see minor variations in style. A photograph of a particular cloud type would also enhance the article by providing a more human touch.

I have expanded the size of the images within the article. The problem is, because of the article's length, one more image would destroy its format. The only alternative I can see is replacing the image we have with the cartoon cloud shapes with a real example of just one cloud type. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• "English units" is a problematic term: in particular, the UK (hence England) is mostly metric (for temperature and rainfall, but not necessarily windspeed). Better terms are Imperial units and U.S. customary units. Whatever the choice, it should be wikilinked.  Done
• Some of the prose needs work e.g. "The wind barbs are in this orientation because more than a century ago, winds were plotted as arrows facing downwind, with feathers at the end." (and this also needs a citation). Done

I hope that helps. You probably have a couple of weeks (maybe longer) before a reviewer comes along. Good luck! Geometry guy 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly helpful review. Thank you. The first change made was to better define the article in the first line, per a suggestion made by Gopher Backer on my talk page. I will look up information on the history of station models...I had realized some history would be useful myself a couple hours ago. If I find too much information, I'll split it off as a subarticle. I'll mark off the sections tackled with a done template, so you can check out the progress. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've moved the done templates to the end of the paragraphs to preserve wikiformat. Geometry guy 20:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The quick fixes have been made. Filling out the history of the station model is going to require a bit of research before I can split history off as an independent section. In order to fill out the article a little more, changes have been made to explain why various isohyets based upon the station model are drawn on weather maps. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way this article could be improved I think is if the picture gallery ("low cloud types", "mid cloud types", etc.) under Cloud Types was smaller lengthwise. Right now, at least at the computer I'm on, it doesn't fit lengthwise and thus requires a scroller both vertically and horizontally. Decreasing its size would make for better readability of the page as a whole. I can help fix this once I have time if need be. Triberocker (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)  Done Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions

Thegreatdr... you've done a good job of addressing the issues presented. I read your user page... congratulations on all the articles you've contributed! I hope you can add this article to your collection of GA awards. It seems like it is almost there. I just have a few suggestions.

First, consider changing as much as possible into active voice. Right now the article is a bit dry and technical. If you changed some sentences to active voice, it would make the topic both more understandable and more interesting. For example,

"When analyzing weather maps, a station model is plotted at each point using either its surface weather observation or its observation aloft based upon its radiosonde or pilot report."

might be...

Meteorologists use the station model to plot complex weather observations onto maps. A forecaster or a computer draws a station model for each observation location. The plotted station model can show either the surface conditions or the weather aloft, reported by either a weather balloon's radiosonde or a pilot's report. Once the maps are complete, meteorologists can see patterns in wind, air pressure, cloud cover, and more.

That's a very good suggestion. I made a small change...but otherwise kept your wording, mentioning that they plot the most information using the smallest amount of space possible, in order to analyze the current weather pattern. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's just one possibility... there are several places that could use active voice.

The second point follows along with that: I think needs more about how meteorologists and aviation use a station model. Station model maps are dense, cluttered, and unfriendly. So, why are they so useful? (I tried to touch on that in the example, above.) I'm imaging the days before computers, when some poor guy had to draw station model maps by hand... then play connect the dots to see patterns. (Maybe I'm wrong about how that was done... I'm just imagining the way it might have been.) That also will get to the history thing mentioned by Geometry guy.

Third, I think it might be interesting to mention which sections are more useful for meteorology vs. aviation. (I've seen mentions that the right side is for wx folks... aviation cares about the other stuff.)

I hope the suggestions help. Wshallwshall (talk) 02:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to show which sections are of more use to those in aviation or to meteorologists, and if so why. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up

Thegreatdr... Per your request on my talk page, I've taken another look at the article. I looked at it vs. the Good Article Criteria. In particular, I was looking at criteria 1:

"It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1] "

Rather that post other suggestions, I've made some changes to the early part of the article. My goal was to make some elements more clear and reduce some jargon.

I know you have a lot invested in this article. Additionally, you're more of an expert in the area (it's been years since I've worked as a meteorologist). I hope you'll take the edits as a starting place and as helpful. Of course, please feel free to correct anything that doesn't seem right to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wshallwshall (talk • contribs) 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I have reviewed this article against the GA criteria, and this is what I've found:

• Well written: Article meets criteria. Prose is clear and understandable. I see some minor formatting/MOS issues but I'll clear those after I'm done reviewing.
• Factually accurate and verifiable: Article meets criteria
• Broad in its coverage: I'm going to say it meets criteria because it covers all parts of the standard. However, if you're looking for a potential vector for expansion, consider looking into the pre-1941 history of the station model; who got together, made and approved it?
• NPOV: Article meets criteria
• Stable: Article meets criteria
• Images: Looks good to me. If anyone has the time, I would suggest redrawing some of them as SVGs, which are designed for scalability and thus are more visible at smaller sizes.

Congratulations! I believe this article meets the criteria for a GA. However, I would suggest expansion before taking it to FA, if that is your intention. Some of the sections look a little short. Good luck on any future ambitions you may have for this article! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wind barb

The Wind barb article at present is quite inferior to the presentation of the topic here at Station model#Plotted winds. Either the majority of the text in that section should be merged into Wind barb, or Wind barb's text and graphic should be deleted and changed into a redirect to Station model#Plotted winds. – Wdfarmer (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Made wind barb a redirect to this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In this article, would it be possible to be a bit more precise (or add a reference to a standard, etc.)? In particular, are wind speeds rounded to the nearest feather, or rounded down? For example, would 8 kts be shown as a half-feather (rounded down) or a full feather (to nearest)? I ask because for a light aeroplane pilot 10 kts and 14.99 kts are very different. I've googled for this without success. Thanks! quota (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Station model

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Station model's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Plymouth State Meteorology":

• From Cloud: Koermer, Jim (2011). "Plymouth State Meteorology Program Cloud Boutique". Plymouth State University.
• From Cirrus cloud: Jim Koermer (2011). "Plymouth State Meteorology Program Cloud Boutique". Plymouth State University. Retrieved 2 April 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Station model. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070428172620/http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/~hail/teachers/lessons/isopleths.htm to http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/~hail/teachers/lessons/isopleths.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080709005941/http://www.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/weather.htm to http://www.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/weather.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070525051818/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/charts.html to http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/education/secondary/students/charts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061214022852/http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swshargi/MT11B/MT11B_S4.pdf to http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swshargi/MT11B/MT11B_S4.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)