Talk:Station model

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  Submitted article for GA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for cloud symbol image for article

message: 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.</div>— Wshallwshall (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Second GA attempt

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: 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)
thread_title: Follow-up

message: 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)
thread_title: GA Review

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

message: 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: 
From Cirrus cloud: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Station model]] 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)