# Talk:Altostratus cloud

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Altostratus cloud. 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/20050420085336/http://www.nsdl.arm.gov/Library/glossary.shtml to http://www.nsdl.arm.gov/Library/glossary.shtml
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Altostratus cloud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bli231957 (talk · contribs) 20:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written: 
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 
b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable: 
a (reference section): 
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage: 
a (major aspects): 
b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy: 
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable: 
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate: 
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll be comparing it with the GA Cumulus cloud and the FA Cirrus cloud. Bli231957 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Ironically, I also wrote the Cumulus cloud and Cirrus cloud articles. Note that I'll only be able to get to this after Easter, since I have some important family events! Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, that might make it a bit easier, and have a good time! Bli231957 (talk) 09:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Altostratus is very similar in structure to the Cumulus cloud and Cirrus cloud articles, but it still needs a bit of improvement. (see the initial comments) Bli231957 (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


### Comments
Is Center for Science Education a reliable source? Bli231957 (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It's a project of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which is a consortium of 100+ universities working with the National Science Foundation. Yes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, that's great. Bli231957 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The lead doesn't have any references. Maybe you can add some? Bli231957 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
When it is already sourced at the body of the article, it doesnt need citation at lead. 2001:4455:699:AB00:55AF:EAE6:6BC5:DF72 (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Ok, and the rest of the article is referenced well. Bli231957 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
The sections "Use in forecasting" and "Optical phenomena" need expansion. Bli231957 (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
What is missing? Altostratus clouds have one major use in forecasting (predicting warm fronts), which is already mentioned in the article. I suppose I could perhaps expand a little on what the optical phenomena actually are, but altostratus clouds aren't particularly known for producing amazing light shows. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
It would be good to have an explanation to what optical phenomena are, and I think that the section "Thunderstorms" is too short to have an section of its own. Bli231957 (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Expanded on what the optical phenomena are and merged the "thunderstorms" section. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks good. Bli231957 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
An image on the section "Formation" will be helpful. Bli231957 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me look for one.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I added an image. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks good, but does it relate to the formation of altostratus clouds? Bli231957 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
How about now? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
"In some ice crystal altostratus, very thin, rapidly-disappearing horizontal sheets of water droplets appear at random." (in Microphyscal properties) Does this make sense? Bli231957 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Rewrote to hopefully make more sense. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Great! Bli231957 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It will be helpful if there were more wikilinks in most sections. Bli231957 (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
For example, in the section "Description", maybe put a link on "altocumulus". Bli231957 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikilinked unlinked terminology. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Great. It looks better now. Bli231957 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
The readable prose size is not a lot. I know this doesn't mean anything, but you can expand some of the sections or add new ones. Bli231957 (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Again, what is missing? Do you have some examples of topic(s) that perhaps should be included? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Bli231957, thoughts on this? I think the article covers all major topics adequately, although perhaps you know of some that are missing. I can, of course, greatly expand the prose, but it would likely violate the summary style that encyclopedia articles should have, since it would add a bunch of in-depth information from specific studies. Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that the article covers all the major topics, but maybe talk about warm and occluded fronts in Altostratus_cloud#Use_in_forecasting. Bli231957 (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
I've added a bit more on the frontal systems. However, this isn't an article on frontal systems, so I don't want to go into excessive depth. It should now have enough information that readers will get a basic understanding of frontal systems and why they are relevant to altostratus clouds. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
It looks good. I agree that it shouldn't go into excessive depth, but it should have a short description. Bli231957 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I added a short description to the article. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
That's not the short description I meant, by the way, but it's fine. Bli231957 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Bli231957, did you see my previous additions to the "Use in forecasting" section? I have already added a brief description of frontal systems. Let me know if that's what you're looking for or not. Again, summary style does come into play here, and readers can click the wikilinks if they want all the nitty-gritty details on fronts. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen it, and that's what I was looking for. I was just commenting on InterstellarGamer12321 because they added the template Short description. Bli231957 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the GAList template to show that the article has a broad coverage. Bli231957 (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
@Reaper Eternal: I think that this will pass the good article nomination. Well done! Bli231957 (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
It passes all of the criteria, so I think it should be GA-class. Bli231957 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)