|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weather front article.|
|Weather front 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.|
|WikiProject Non-tropical storms||(Rated GA-class, High-importance)|
|Weather front has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as GA-Class.|
|WikiProject Meteorology||(Rated GA-class, High-importance)|
|This article was the Selected Article for May 2008 at Portal:Weather.|
- 1 Psychological Effects
- 2 Why do cold fronts move from west to east?
- 3 Creation of article
- 4 First sentence
- 5 GA on hold: Notes for fixes
- 6 History section
- 7 Singular title
- 8 Tropical waves are not fronts
- 9 Cold and occluded fronts
- 10 GA Sweeps Review: Pass
- 11 Images
- 12 Tropical waves?
- 13 Anafront
- 14 Which weather front brings the most severe weather?
- 15 Dry Line description has a problem
Some individuals have psychological effects (myself including) when fronts are near their area. Some people feel anxious and fidgety while others may be depressed or tired. I usually feel anxious and sometimes get fidgety and restless especially when a thunderstorm is coming. There should be a section about this added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have studied this so perhaps could write a stub for it somewhere?
- As with ALL earth science, there is no way to be objective in one's opinions and discoveries. Perhaps the Wikipedia should allow a measure of leeway for such stuff. I know that there are trolls and religious maniacs here who would destroy any efforts to push the boundaries of science though. I would not want to get hacked by such clowns.
Why do cold fronts move from west to east?
The Coriolis effect, I believe.
- The trouble with beliefs is that a religious maniac can always make the maths fit and then wave his hands over the bits that don't.
- I read in Principia once that those phenomena which are of the earth stay on earth... or words to that effect. Consider this from the article:
- A weather front is a boundary separating two masses of air of different densities, and is the principal cause of meteorological phenomena.
- If it were a cause it would overcome the natural propensity for a gas to compromise its dynamics with heat. The situation is the same with a sand-box. The diminishing return of stopping a bullet in one takes advantage of the pyramid effect. The initial force is dissipated among a layer of sand which in turn has to move a larger layer of sand next to it... which in turn....
- In short, weather does not cause weather and something moving at the same speed as the planet would have to cope with changes above the speed of sound as a unit of mass. Such a thing is easily seen as improbable if not impossible.
- That's the physics dealt with; you now have the alternative idea:
- When an object moves north or south of the equator the planet beneath it continues to move at 15 degrees per hour no matter what longitude. So it does seem logical that a cyclone apparently moves east to west. And the same may be said for anticyclones.
- But that only occurs in or near the tropics. In the higher latitudes things go the other way.
- Then there are blocking Highs and Lows. Why don't they move at 15 degrees per hour?
Creation of article
This article was created when it was realized that it was taking too prominent of a role in surface weather analysis, and that the previous article would flow better if this was its subarticle. Since its previous article was GA, I nominated this one for GA. Thegreatdr 17:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The first sentence needs some work. The current version is "Fronts in meteorology are the leading edges of air masses with different density (e.g., air temperature and/or humidity)." Something along the lines of: "A weather front is the interface of two air masses of different density. The air masses generally differ in temperature and may also differ in humidity." might work. Cheers. HausTalk 01:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- I like the wording change proposed. The change has been made. Thegreatdr 13:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weather does not cause weather.
GA on hold: Notes for fixes
Well, since I did the peer review for the parent article, I thought it might be germaine to do the GA review for this one. Hope you don't mind. Some ideas needed to fix this one up:
- It looks like this article was forked from the Surface weather analysis article BEFORE many of the fixes that were done at Peer Review. Rather than rehash them here, you might want to go and bring over the fixed up version. Much of the fixes made there are still needed here. For one example, the Occluded Front section still uses the ambiguous "curves up" description.
- The lead needs real work.
- First of all, bold the name of the article the first time it appears.
- Secondly, the lead doesn't really summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for some help with this. Basically, each section in an article of this size probably merits a summary sentance in the lead. The lead as it stands right now makes a good first paragraph, and I wouldn't lose much from it, but consider a second paragraph where you lay out the definitions of each kind of front. The lead should be more than just an abstract, it should be an "article in minature" that could stand alone as a work by itself.
- Consider adding a bit explaining the southern hemisphere as well, even if only to indicate that it is the exact opposite of the northern. Our Aussie friends will appreciate it.
- BoM is the world leader in meteorology. The Aussies already appreciate the good stuff. What is required is work on the Spanish and Portuguese to bring the world up to date.
- A few more wikilinks may be in order, especially where they would lead to articles that would help expand points in the article. "Low pressure system" is one example. "Stratiform" is another example from the Peer Review (see #1 above). "Surface analysis" probably needs a wikilink as well, considering it is the parent article! I would even add a line into the lead about it as well, since frontal analysis is a HUGE part of an SWA.
I have every confidence that this article will improve to be GA level soon. My experience is that the main editor has been quite responsive. If you have any questions, or seek a final review, drop a line by my talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the changes have now been made. Let me know if I missed something. Thegreatdr 13:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe there should be a brief one, maybe mentioning something about the Norwegian Cyclone model for storms and how it was not recognized widely for a long time, in spite of it being correct. -RunningOnBrains 02:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- I added it to the see also section, but I don't want this article to be exactly the same as Surface weather analysis. Thegreatdr 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The article name must be in singular form, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. There's no particular reason for this to be pluralized. The lead sentence would make perfect sense if it started with "a weather front lies at the interface of two air masses...". —Michael Z. 2007-07-05 01:45 Z
Tropical waves are not fronts
While they may be mentioned somewhere within the body of the article to distinguish them, the passage I'm deleting doesn't belong in the intro where there's an implication that they are fronts. Tmangray 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is, on the Unified Surface Analysis, TPC considers them synoptic scale features, and therefore a type of front. For whatever reason, they do not consider tropical cyclones or tropical waves mesoscale, even though they really are. The passage concerning tropical waves needs to be reverted. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Cold and occluded fronts
GA Sweeps Review: Pass
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because of reference 2, which is due to TPC's insistence that they don't analyze mesoscale features on their surface analyses. Don't get me started on that. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that TPC (whatever that is) says that tropical waves are fronts? -Atmoz (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nothing on anafronts? The weather forecaster on my local radio station just mentioned one is coming and suggested Googling the term. Surprised WP has no mention of it. Qwfp (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Which weather front brings the most severe weather?
Although many websites agree the cold front brings the most severe weather, I disagree. Cold fronts bring
low temperatures and precipitaion for a short amount of time, but a stationary front brings the same affects over a long period of time. Please give me your comments on the matter. Saisai514 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Saisai51:
- Squall lines can form along cold fronts, before riding out ahead of the boundaries into the warm sector of extratropical cyclones. Tornadoes are more frequent with supercell thunderstorms which main form along warm fronts. Stationary fronts can be the focus of heavy rains, particularly if the stationary front is the polar front at the leading edge of the Westerlies. It depends what you mean exactly by severe weather. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Dry Line description has a problem
The section Dry Line contains the following sentence, "Near the surface during daylight hours, warm moist air is denser than dry air of greater temperature, and thus the warm moist air wedges under the drier air like a cold front."
This directly contradicts the Wikipedia article "Dry Line", which says, "Near the surface, warm dry air is more dense than warm moist air of similar temperature, and thus the warm dry air wedges under the moist air like a cold front."
These two statements can not both be true since they are completely opposite. I do not know meteorology, so I can't choose which is correct. Someone knowledgeable needs to clean this up, editing one or both articles. 7802mark (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)