# Talk:Cyclogenesis

I think it's close to B class...but it's hard to determine that for this article without input.  What might be missing in this article?  Is it overly technical?  Not technical enough?  Since it's of high importance, I'd like to improve it as soon as possible.  Thegreatdr 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be hhonest, my fisrst thought relates to both this page and the lede - if "tropical cyclogenesis is a completely different process", and already has an article of it's own, of what relevance is this page to WPTC and TC's in general?
A far better means of structuring this, in my opinion, would be to move this page to "Extratropical cyclogenesis" and concentrate in that area (thus giving both types equal coverage and promenance), and to edit the resultant "cyclogenesis" redirect to be replaced with a Disambiguation page. Crimsone 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am very against a pure disambiguation, however a main article with subarticles seems like a very good idea....there are about a dozen types of cyclone (tropical cyclone, mid-latitude cyclone, polar low, mesocyclone, tornado, dust-devil, waterspout, MCS, etc.), all of which form from different processes, and most of which should have an article on their genesis (especially mid-latitude, mesocyclone, and tornado IMO).  There should be a main cyclogenesis article, which briefly describes each method of cyclogenesis with links to the main articles in each section, such as tropical cyclogenesis, mid-latitude cyclogenesis, tornadogenesis, etc.  Now, since this article is a good one, but deals solely with mid-latitude cyclogenesis, it should be moved there, then make this page (cyclogenesis) a summary of all cyclogenesis methods.  -Runningonbrains 03:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I originally wanted this article to be the main article on cyclogenesis, with an included blurb on tropical cyclogenesis, hence the inclusion of hurricane at the top of the talk page.  I don't see a point in creating an mid-latitude or extratropical cyclogenesis page, because it would be completely new terminology.  Though cyclogenesis is mainly used for extratropical cyclones, one could use it for tropical cyclogenesis, tornadogenesis, etc.  Changes are underway to include other types of cyclogenesis. Thegreatdr 11:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work so far.  -Runningonbrains 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put the GA nomination on hold based on the GA criteria.

Well written - Fail. Some parts could use a bit more explaining for the non-technical person. For example, in the intro, "cyclogenesis is driven by upper level divergence over a portion of the density contrast between warm and cold air masses in environments with high vertical wind shear." This is a bit confusing. For such a complex topic, it might be difficult to explain it in layman's terms, though you should try.
Factually accurate - Fail. Seven paragraphs don't have any sources at their end. For example, is there a source for September being the month with the most waterspouts? Some of those seven can probably be sourced by other sources in the article.
Broad in its coverage - Pass. It seems to be a good overview of the different types of cyclogenesis.
Non POV - Pass
Stable - Pass
Images - Weak pass. Per the MOS, the article needs to start with a right-aligned image. Additionally, the first image is unclear in its usage status.
The GA nomination will be on hold for seven days. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

An attempt has been made to satisfy conditions one, the example in two, and number six.  Will get on adding more references Sunday or Monday.  Thegreatdr 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking better. Once you add those sources, it should be able to pass GA. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we're up to two references a paragraph now.  There were only one or two paragraphs missing a reference.  Thegreatdr 06:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, it looks good enough. Pass. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
As a side note, I do not believe the lead picture has a correct copyright tag.  It was retrieved from a colorodo.edu site, with no assertion of being created by the US Government. -Runningonbrains 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I read up more on the website and it appears to be a NOAA collaberation. -Runningonbrains 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To me this looks like its nearly at FA status.  I think peer review is in order, no? -Runningonbrains 00:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit short in places. The lede is one paragraph, and there are several other one paragraph sections (which should be avoided as their own section). My two biggest concerns are non-experts being able to understand it and if it's detailed enough. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not sure it's A class (though certainly GA class). having just read the lead, I am indeed having a little difficulty understanding a little of it. The first section, though written well enough, doesn't seem to belong in this particular article.
The negative said though, all of the information needed seems to be there and written reasonably well (and unlike Extratropical cyclone, this one's bound to need to be somewhat technical by nature of it's subject) and so it probably wouldn't be too much of a problem to get it to FA class in my opinion. Still - it's only my opinion :) Crimsone 08:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I have changed to lead to reflect the article's current state.  I attempted to tie in cyclone scales to the various cyclones listed in the article.  The article is now in peer review before it enters FAC.  Thegreatdr 13:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006, especially at it is currently an A-class article. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. 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) 07:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, and the section is too techinically written for the lay reader.  Recent additions have made matters worse, not better.  If not fixed in a week, I will be tempted to revert the most recent edits.  Thegreatdr (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Cyclogenesis. 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/20060830135741/http://www.nsidc.org:80/arcticmet/glossary/cyclogenesis.html to http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/glossary/cyclogenesis.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827170650/http://www.nsidc.org:80/arcticmet/glossary/synoptic_scale.html to http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/glossary/synoptic_scale.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060901000000/http://weather.ou.edu/~metr4424/Files/Norwegian_Cyclone_Model.pdf to http://weather.ou.edu/~metr4424/Files/Norwegian_Cyclone_Model.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060916052440/http://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/Presentations/Conferences/NWA2002/Snow_NWA_02/tsld003.htm to http://www.eas.slu.edu/CIPS/Presentations/Conferences/NWA2002/Snow_NWA_02/tsld003.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090921075014/http://www.stormtrack.org:80/library/1981/warren.htm to http://www.stormtrack.org/library/1981/warren.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 05:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Cyclogenesis. 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/20090827030639/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A15.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/A15.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005182337/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/spout.html to http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/spout.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617185638/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/spoutpre.html to http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/spoutpre.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 00:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclogenesis. 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/20090609104745/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=short+wave&submit=Search to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?p=1&query=short+wave&submit=Search
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090609192058/http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=upper-level-trough1 to http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=upper-level-trough1
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) 10:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)